Alan Eugene Miller v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 07/08/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 CR-08-1413 A l a n Eugene Miller v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal KELLUM, from S h e l b y C i r c u i t (CC-99-792.60) Judge. The a p p e l l a n t , A l a n at Holman denial pursuant Court Eugene M i l l e r , Correctional Facility, of h i s petition an i n m a t e on d e a t h r o w appeals thecircuit f o r postconviction t o R u l e 3 2 , A l a . R. C r i m . P. relief court's filed CR-08-1413 In June 2000, connection with Christopher S. made capital pursuant the Miller's they scheme A l a . Code jury's recommendation This direct Court See C r i m . App. 2 0 0 4 ) . review on May j u d g m e n t was Miller v. Alabama, On Rule May 32 answered the appeal, and Miller's v. 2005, that denied 546 and U.S. Miller's State, 32 he the this 1097 petition. which "by to conviction 913 one See were act § review death. and sentence 2d on 1148 ( A l a . certiorari certificate i n January counsel, f i l e d Circuit April that reasserted 2 that of 2006. (2006). Shelby petition of The U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e m e through On or 13A-5- of 10-2, So. court's certiorari in in murders court accepted the Miller same d a y . 19, 2 0 0 6 , M i l l e r , Rule circuit sentenced petition amended The of conduct." The in Holdbrooks, The A l a b a m a S u p r e m e C o u r t d e n i e d issued subsequently Jarvis. recommended, by a v o t e Miller 27, Court Michael murder F o l l o w i n g the p e n a l t y phase to death. affirmed appeal. Lee committed or course the j u r y be s e n t e n c e d of were 1975. Miller convicted of capital and T e r r y Lee because trial, was deaths Yancy, t o one 40(a)(10), Miller 4, Court. 2007, i s the and a timely The State Miller filed subject expanded the of this claims CR-08-1413 asserted in his original Rule petition, M i l l e r claimed, among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t he r e c e i v e d ineffective a s s i s t a n c e of t r i a l On A p r i l to dismiss Following circuit a the State's claims of an a n s w e r a n d a m o t i o n and M i l l e r motion a w r i t t e n order counsel. February 11-14, appellate counsel. Miller's following witnesses: Charles Scott, Miller before Carr, Jr., Alicia to dismiss, 2008, claims Miller ineffective an assistance of evidentiary Miller of psychiatrist Miller, Sanford, Miller, Cheryl and Jacob 32 p r o c e e d i n g . Harry before McClaren, trial who r e v i e w e d 3 of retained Miller's psychologist additional counsel; to evaluate m o t h e r ; George Ellison, Connell, of the trial Samuel various The S t a t e p r e s e n t e d another was the testimony Mickey Johnson, M i l l e r ' s the hearing assistance ineffective presented t r i a l ; Barbara Richard for h i s Rule Dr. the dismissing a l l Miller's f a m i l y members; and Dr. C a t h e r i n e B o y e r , M i l l e r ' s of responded. counsel. on Miller, on his conducted Dr. filed amended p e t i t i o n , hearing except appellate On Miller's I n t h e amended and a p p e l l a t e 18, 2007, t h e S t a t e court entered claims, 32 p e t i t i o n . Brian Miller psychologist the testimony who examined documents f o rthe CR-08-1413 Rule 32 trial proceedings, counsel. evidence, The Because more t o be 1 counsel, the testimony Haran Following respective court denied death parties needed the testimony evidentiary submitted of M i l l e r ' s hearing, On petition filed o b j e c t i o n to So. present 2008. Miller Hill. other appellate an for the briefs for the in a This May 5, 2009, 157-page the appeal at the circuit order. Miller court's order, which followed. opinion affirming Miller's t h i s Court 2d counsel post-hearing consideration. the o r i g i n a l 913 to continued. Miller's sentence, Miller, was other of h i s a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l , B i l l y c i r c u i t court denied. In time Miller's Lowe. the court's subsequently the Blackwood, e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g r e s u m e d on A u g u s t 6, State presented circuit Ronnie h e a r i n g had the presented The and s e t out the f a c t s conviction and of the crime. See 1154-57. Standard of "'Postconviction f u r t h e r removed from Review relief is the c r i m i n a l even trial Mickey Johnson's first cocounsel, Roger w i t h d r e w d u r i n g the p r e t r i a l phase, d i e d i n 2002. 1 4 Bass, who (R. 29.) CR-08-1413 than i s d i s c r e t i o n a r y d i r e c t review. I t i s not p a r t of the c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g i t s e l f , a n d i t i s i n f a c t c o n s i d e r e d t o be c i v i l i n nature. See F a y v . N o i a , 372 U.S. 391, 4 2 3 - 4 2 4 , 83 S . C t . 8 2 2 , 8 4 1 , 9 L . E d . 2 d 837 (1963). I t is a collateral attack that normally occurs only a f t e r the defendant has f a i l e d t o s e c u r e r e l i e f t h r o u g h d i r e c t r e v i e w o f h i s c o n v i c t i o n . S t a t e s h a v e no obligation to provide this avenue of relief ' " P e n n s y l v a n i a v . F i n l e y , 481 U.S. 5 5 1 , S . C t . 1 9 9 0 , 95 L . E d . 2 d 539 (1987). 556-57, 107 "'[P]ostconviction state collateral review itself i s not a constitutional r i g h t , even i n c a p i t a l c a s e s . M u r r a y v. G i a r r a t a n o ( 1 9 8 9 ) , 492 U.S. 1, 109 S . C t . 2765, 106 L.Ed. 2d 1; Pennsylvania v. Finley (1 9 8 7 ) , 481 U.S. 551 , 107 S.Ct. 1 9 9 0 , 95 L . E d . 2 d 5 3 9 . A p o s t c o n v i c t i o n p r o c e e d i n g i s n o t an a p p e a l o f a c r i m i n a l conviction, but, rather, a c o l l a t e r a l c i v i l attack on the judgment. See State v. C r o w d e r ( 1 9 9 1 ) , 60 O h i o S t . 3 d 1 5 1 , 573 N.E. 2d 652. P o s t c o n v i c t i o n r e v i e w i s a n a r r o w remedy, s i n c e r e s j u d i c a t a b a r s any c l a i m t h a t was o r c o u l d h a v e b e e n r a i s e d a t t r i a l o r on d i r e c t a p p e a l . ' " S t a t e v . S t e f f e n , 70 O h i o S t . 3d 3 9 9 , 4 1 0 , 639 2 d 67, 76 (1994)." James v. _ _ _ , ___ State, [Ms. ( A l a . Crim. CR-04-0395, App. 2010). 5 March 26, 2010] N.E. So. 3d CR-08-1413 According sole P., burden to Rule 32.3, A l a . R. o f p l e a d i n g and Crim. proof. Rule P., 32.3, Miller has A l a . R. the Crim. provides: "The p e t i t i o n e r s h a l l h a v e t h e b u r d e n o f p l e a d i n g and p r o v i n g by a p r e p o n d e r a n c e of the evidence the f a c t s necessary to e n t i t l e the p e t i t i o n e r to r e l i e f . The S t a t e s h a l l have the burden o f p l e a d i n g any ground of preclusion, but once a ground of p r e c l u s i o n has been p l e a d e d , t h e p e t i t i o n e r shall have the burden o f d i s p r o v i n g i t s e x i s t e n c e by a preponderance of the evidence." (Emphasis added.) "Preponderance of the evidence" i s defined as: "The g r e a t e r w e i g h t o f t h e e v i d e n c e , n o t n e c e s s a r i l y established by the g r e a t e r number of witnesses t e s t i f y i n g t o a f a c t b u t by e v i d e n c e t h a t has t h e most c o n v i n c i n g f o r c e ; s u p e r i o r e v i d e n t i a r y w e i g h t t h a t , though not s u f f i c i e n t to f r e e the mind w h o l l y from a l l reasonable doubt, i s s t i l l s u f f i c i e n t to i n c l i n e a f a i r a n d i m p a r t i a l m i n d t o one s i d e o f t h e i s s u e r a t h e r than the o t h e r . " Black's Law Dictionary T h o u g h we for plain reviewed error, 1220 (8th ed. the c l a i m s on the p l a i n - e r r o r and death sentence. 3d 418, 424 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2d 1186 ( A l a . C r i m . App. attacking See 2008); 2007); 6 Miller's direct appeal s t a n d a r d of r e v i e w does apply to a p o s t c o n v i c t i o n p e t i t i o n conviction 2004). Hall Ferguson a capital-murder v. W a l d r o p v. v. not State, State, State, 979 So. 13 So. 987 So. 2d 125 CR-08-1413 (Ala. C r i m . App. Crim. App. Rule in 32 2007); 2006). Gaddy v. "In addition, apply with equal which State, the 666 death So. 2d 91, the circuit Miller's postconviction standard. Finally, we appeal, this Court records from Miller's State, 607 So. 2d been may 952 in So. judicial direct appeal 371 (Ala. n. on we 2d App. the 1 995). at an 1 of this (Ala. Crim. in abuse-of- 1154. notice to v. When claims raised apply of those Brownlee reviewing Miller's take 369, imposed.'" Crim. petition, that 1149 including court's ruling note 2d procedural bars (Ala. Gaddy, So. to a l l cases, force 93 952 '[t]he p e n a l t y has reviewing discretion State, claims this Court's Court. App. in Hull v. 1992). I. Miller with only denying Miller's argues minor his reply the the circuit modifications, Rule Following petition, that 32 brief, the petition. at which was (Miller's hearing submitted State also submitted a proposed petition, State's proposed brief, at order 14-18; 8-11.) evidentiary parties the court erred i n adopting, on Miller's post-hearing Rule briefs. The order denying M i l l e r s ' Rule essentially 7 a reformatted version 32 of 32 the CR-08-1413 State's his post-hearing reply brief, State had May Miller submitted consideration, On brief. 5, nor did a not file the circuit an order The entered court's a order reply brief. the order fact for that the adopted the the submission Miller's State's Rule an o b j e c t i o n t o t h e c i r c u i t proposed Miller's order as its o b j e c t i o n by the order. court's adopting The following circuit written the 32 Miller the State's court denied order: "The C o u r t d e n i e s ' P e t i t i o n e r ' s O b j e c t i o n t o t h e C o u r t ' s A d o p t i o n o f t h e S t a t e ' s L e g a l and F a c t u a l A s s e r t i o n s t o D e n y t h e A m e n d e d R u l e 32 P e t i t i o n . ' "The C o u r t s p e n t many h o u r s c a r e f u l l y l i s t e n i n g to the testimony p r e s e n t e d i n t h e h e a r i n g on the p e t i t i o n . The C o u r t r e a d , a n d o f t e n r e - r e a d , e a c h o f the submissions o f f e r e d by t h e P e t i t i o n e r and the State. The Court carefully weighed each of the arguments put forth i n a l l the submissions. The Court found none of the Petitioner's arguments persuasive when considered together with the t e s t i m o n y g i v e n a t t h e h e a r i n g a n d t h e a r g u m e n t made by t h e S t a t e . C o n t r a r y t o t h e a s s e r t i o n s o f the P e t i t i o n e r , c a s e law i s c l e a r and u n a m b i g u o u s t h a t a d o p t i n g i n w h o l e o r i n p a r t an o r d e r p r o p o s e d b y t h e S t a t e i s n o t e r r o r . H o o k s v . S t a t e [21 So. 3d 7 7 2 ] ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2008). 8 of previously s u b m i t t e d p r o p o s e d o r d e r , w i t h v e r y few m o d i f i c a t i o n s . filed the court's S t a t e ' s p r o p o s e d o r d e r -denying In order. s e v e r a l months a f t e r and petition. to a proposed the p o s t - h e a r i n g b r i e f s court filed object proposed d i d he 2009 -- Miller CR-08-1413 "For denied." (C. 2117; On Miller rights adopted the brief, confidence it read [that the court] 'none that the and assess review In to the February 4, court the is his claims circuit recent 2011] case ___ addressed the court's his due- adopting petition that proposed this his because order, Court for So. was post-hearing have any a f t e r - t h e - f a c t assurance that offered weighed brief, at by the Petitioner's therefore, de the which "can the parties arguments arguments 17-18.) novo he [to Miller and asserts, we court's v. be] maintains review this Court afford no findings. of should and before ceded i t s duty to independently claims; the nor carefully court circuit that received Miller's court's (Miller's his State's submissions of circuit deference Court the the argument contends he trial of persuasive.'" should 'Objection' denying the circuit i n the by his Miller neither each finding the order relief. court before reply reasserts proposed postconviction filed [reasons] were v i o l a t e d State's circuit Foregoing 2131.) appeal, process the the Ray 3d ___ State, ( A l a . C r i m . App. a s s e r t i o n t h a t the 9 [Ms. circuit CR-0 6-2143, 2011), this court erred i n CR-08-1413 adopting petition. the State's proposed We rejected Ray's order claim, denying h i s Rule reasoning: "'While the p r a c t i c e of a d o p t i n g the s t a t e ' s p r o p o s e d f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s is subject to c r i t i c i s m , the general rule i s t h a t e v e n when t h e c o u r t a d o p t s p r o p o s e d f i n d i n g s verbatim, the f i n d i n g s are those o f t h e c o u r t a n d may be r e v e r s e d o n l y i f clearly erroneous. Anderson v. C i t y of Bessemer C i t y , N.C., 470 U.S. 564 , 105 S . C t . 1 5 0 4 , 84 L . E d . 2 d 518 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ; H u b b a r d v . S t a t e , 584 S o . 2 d 895 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) ; Weeks v . S t a t e , 568 S o . 2 d 864 ( A l a . Cr. App. 1989), cert. denied, [498] U.S.[882], 498 U.S. 8 8 2 , 111 S. C t . 2 3 0 , 112 L . E d . 2 d 184 ( 1 9 9 0 ) ; M o r r i s o n v . S t a t e , 551 S o . 2 d 435 ( A l a . Cr. App.), cert. d e n i e d , 495 U.S. 9 1 1 , 110 S . C t . 1 9 3 8 , 109 L.Ed. 2d 301 ( 1 9 9 0 ) . ' " B e l l v . S t a t e , 593 S o . 2 d 1 2 3 , 126 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) . S e e a l s o D o b y n e v . S t a t e , 805 S o . 2 d 7 3 3 , 741 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) ; J o n e s v . S t a t e , 753 So. 2d 1174, 1180 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) . (Ala. "More r e c e n t l y i n Hyde v . S t a t e , C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ) , we s t a t e d : 950 S o . 2 d 344 " ' [ T ] h i s Court has r e p e a t e d l y u p h e l d the practice of adopting the State's proposed o r d e r when d e n y i n g a Rule 32 p e t i t i o n f o r p o s t c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f . See, e . g . , C o r a l v . S t a t e , 900 S o . 2 d 1 2 7 4 , 1288 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) , o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , E x p a r t e J e n k i n s , 972 S o . 2 d 159 ( A l a . 2005), and t h e cases c i t e d t h e r e i n . "Alabama c o u r t s have c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d t h a t e v e n when a t r i a l c o u r t a d o p t s v e r b a t i m a party's proposed order, the findings of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law a r e those o f 10 32 CR-08-1413 t h e t r i a l c o u r t a n d t h e y may b e r e v e r s e d only i f they are c l e a r l y erroneous." M c G a h e e v . S t a t e , 885 S o . 2 d 1 9 1 , 2 2 9 - 3 0 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003).' "950 So. 2d a t 3 7 1 . "However, the Alabama Supreme Court has a d m o n i s h e d t h a t ' a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s must be c a r e f u l t o evaluate a claim that a prepared order d r a f t e d by the p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y and adopted by t h e t r i a l c o u r t verbatim does not r e f l e c t the independent and impartial f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s of the t r i a l c o u r t . ' E x p a r t e I n g r a m , 51 S o . 3 d 1 1 1 9 , 1124 ( A l a . 2010). "In I n g r a m , t h e Supreme C o u r t held that the circuit court's adoption of the State's proposed order denying p o s t c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f was e r r o n e o u s b e c a u s e , i t s a i d , t h e o r d e r s t a t e d t h a t i t was b a s e d i n p a r t on t h e p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e a n d o b s e r v a t i o n s of the t r i a l j u d g e when t h e j u d g e who actually signed the order denying the p o s t c o n v i c t i o n p e t i t i o n was n o t t h e same j u d g e who had p r e s i d e d over Ingram's capital-murder trial. '[T]he patently erroneous nature of the statements regarding the t r i a l j u d g e ' s " p e r s o n a l knowledge" and o b s e r v a t i o n s of Ingram's capital-murder trial undermines any confidence that the t r i a l judge's f i n d i n g s of fact and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w a r e t h e p r o d u c t o f t h e t r i a l judge's independent judgment I n g r a m , 51 S o . 3 d at 1125. "Our f i r s t opportunity to consider this issue a f t e r t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n I n g r a m came i n J a m e s v . S t a t e , [Ms. C R - 0 4 - 0 3 9 5 , J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 1 0 ] So. 3d ___ ( A l a . Crim. App. 2010) ( o p i n i o n on application f o r r e h e a r i n g ) . We u p h e l d a circuit court's order, adopted verbatim from the State's proposed order, over a c l a i m t h a t i n adopting the S t a t e ' s order t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t had v i o l a t e d Ingram and t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t ' s opinion i n 11 CR-08-1413 J e f f e r s o n v. Upton , U.S. , 130 176 L . E d . 2 d 1032 ( 2 0 1 0 ) . We stated: S.Ct. "'The m a i n c o n c e r n s t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t found objectionable in Ingram are not p r e s e n t i n t h i s c a s e ; h e r e , t h e same j u d g e p r e s i d e d o v e r b o t h James's t r i a l and t h e R u l e 32 p r o c e e d i n g s . A l s o , as we n o t e d i n our p r e v i o u s o p i n i o n i n t h i s case, the circuit court allowed both "parties to submit proposed o r d e r s . " "'In J e f f e r s o n v. U p t o n , [ U.S. , 130 S.Ct. 2217 (2010 ),] t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t remanded J e f f e r s o n ' s habeas corpus proceedings to the lower court f o r that court to determine whether the state court's factual findings w a r r a n t e d a p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s . The Supreme C o u r t i n g r a n t i n g r e l i e f s t a t e d : " ' " A l t h o u g h we have stated that a court's 'verbatim adoption of f i n d i n g s o f f a c t p r e p a r e d by prevailing parties' should be t r e a t e d as f i n d i n g s o f t h e c o u r t , we have also criticized that practice. Anderson [v. C i t y of B e s s e m e r , 470 U.S. [564] a t 572, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L . E d . 2 d 518 [(1985)]. And we have not c o n s i d e r e d the l a w f u l n e s s o f , nor the application of the habeas s t a t u t e t o , the use of such a practice where (1) a judge s o l i c i t s t h e p r o p o s e d f i n d i n g s ex parte, (2) d o e s n o t p r o v i d e t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t y an o p p o r t u n i t y t o criticize the findings or to submit h i s own, or (3) adopts findings that contain internal evidence suggesting that the 12 2217, CR-08-1413 j u d g e may n o t h a v e r e a d t h e m . C f . id., a t 568 , 470 U.S. 564, 105 S . C t . 1 5 0 4 , 84 L . E d . 2d 5 1 8 ; Ga. Code o f J u d i c i a l Conduct, Canon 3(A)(4) (1993) (prohibiting ex parte j u d i c i a l communications)."' "James v. State, So. 3d at (on rehearing). " H e r e , t h e c i r c u i t j u d g e who signed the order d e n y i n g p o s t c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f was t h e same j u d g e who p r e s i d e d o v e r R a y ' s g u i l t a n d p e n a l t y p r o c e e d i n g s -¬ t h e j u d g e who s e n t e n c e d R a y t o d e a t h . None o f t h e c o n c e r n s t h e Supreme C o u r t s t r e s s e d i n I n g r a m a r e present in this case. Moreover, f o r the reasons d e t a i l e d i n t h i s o p i n i o n , we h o l d t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s are not ' c l e a r l y erroneous.'" Ray, So. 3d Supreme order this Court 1091275, Scott, . after Shortly at released March 18, the Alabama summarily Supreme C o u r t that the f i n d i n g s and In after Rule 32 p e t i t i o n , electronic copy the order State that the court State's 13 Scott, [Ms. In a circuit petition, the adopted violated circuit court's law. i t s answer r e q u e s t e d and answer. court's which 32 p e t i t i o n , of filed Alabama ( A l a . 2011). reflect conclusions the c i r c u i t of 32 the parte 3d held a Rule Ray, i n Ex answer to the Rule independent Scott, So. dismissing requirement released i t s opinion 2011] v e r b a t i m the State's the Court The to Scott's received circuit an court CR-08-1413 subsequently issued a w r i t t e n order Rule 32 petition. adopted verbatim Scott which filed court's State, (Ala. order App. Scott's petition circuit court's So. court 3d 1119 to the c i r c u i t denied. This adoption with (Ala. 2010). March Court 2 6, essentially 32 petition. court's order, affirmed 2010] Supreme of c e r t i o r a r i of the State's i t s decision The C o u r t Scott's R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n . The A l a b a m a f o r a writ order to the Rule denying Scott's 2010). conflicted court's answer an o b j e c t i o n [Ms. C R - 0 6 - 2 2 3 3 , Crim. petition circuit the State's the c i r c u i t circuit v. The summarily denying So. Court and h e l d Scott 3d granted that the answer t o t h e Rule i n Ex p a r t e Ingram, reasoned: "Scott argues that the t r i a l court's order c o n t a i n s t h e same c i t a t i o n t o c a s e l a w t h a t h a d b e e n o v e r r u l e d b y t h i s C o u r t two y e a r s b e f o r e t h e e n t r y of the trial court's order and the same typographical e r r o r s as c o n t a i n e d i n the State's answer. Moreover, S c o t t contends t h a t because the trial court adopted n e a r l y verbatim the State's a n s w e r as i t s o r d e r , t h e o r d e r i s i n f e c t e d w i t h t h e a d v e r s a r i a l z e a l o f t h e S t a t e ' s c o u n s e l . Thus, S c o t t argues that the t r i a l court's order cannot r e f l e c t the i n d e p e n d e n t and i m p a r t i a l f i n d i n g s o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t a n d c a n n o t be t h e p r o d u c t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s i n d e p e n d e n t j u d g m e n t . As f o r S c o t t ' s c l a i m t h a t t h e presence i n the t r i a l court's order o f t h e same t y p o g r a p h i c a l e r r o r s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e S t a t e ' s answer is evidence that the t r i a l court's order i s not a p r o d u c t of t h e independent judgment o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , we n o t e t h a t S c o t t h a s d i r e c t e d t h i s C o u r t t o 14 the 32 51 CR-08-1413 only two e x a m p l e s of such typographical errors a p p e a r i n g i n t h e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 58 p a g e s o f t e x t t h a t c o n s t i t u t e t h e S t a t e ' s answer and t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r . T h i s C o u r t r e c o g n i z e d i n E x p a r t e I n g r a m [, 51 S o . 3 d 1 1 1 9 ( A l a . 2 0 1 0 ) , ] t h a t s o m e t i m e s m i n o r e r r o r s f i n d t h e i r way i n t o o r d e r s d r a f t e d b y t r i a l c o u r t s . We do n o t c o n s i d e r t h e f e w t y p o g r a p h i c a l e r r o r s a t i s s u e h e r e , by t h e m s e l v e s , as s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e upon w h i c h t o base a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e t r i a l court's order i s not a product of the t r i a l c o u r t ' s i n d e p e n d e n t j u d g m e n t . The f a c t t h a t t h e same t y p o g r a p h i c a l e r r o r s a p p e a r i n t h e same l o c a t i o n s i n b o t h t h e S t a t e ' s answer and t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r does, however, bolster this Court's conclusion reached i n f r a that the t r i a l court's order i s not a product o f i t s i n d e p e n d e n t j u d g m e n t . We a l s o n o t e t h a t t h e S t a t e ' s answer and t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r a r e b o t h 58 p a g e s i n l e n g t h . A g a i n , a l t h o u g h this f a c t a l o n e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e upon w h i c h t o base a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t the order i s not a product of the t r i a l c o u r t ' s independent judgment, i t b o l s t e r s t h i s Court's conclusion reached i n f r a that the t r i a l court's order i s not a product of i t s independent judgment. "Further, Scott notes that i n adopting the S t a t e ' s answer t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e p e a t e d i n i t s order the S t a t e ' s c i t a t i o n t o and r e l i a n c e upon W i l l i a m s v . S t a t e , 783 S o . 2 d 108 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) , a case that had been overruled by this Court approximately two y e a r s before the t r i a l court e n t e r e d i t s o r d e r i n t h i s c a s e . I n Ex p a r t e T a y l o r , 10 So. 3d 1075 ( A l a . 2005), this Court by i m p l i c a t i o n overruled the Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals' h o l d i n g i n W i l l i a m s t h a t '"a f i n d i n g o f no m a n i f e s t injustice under the ' p l a i n e r r o r ' standard on a d i r e c t a p p e a l s e r v e s t o e s t a b l i s h a f i n d i n g o f no p r e j u d i c e under the t e s t f o r i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l p r o v i d e d i n S t r i c k l a n d v . W a s h i n g t o n , 466 U.S. 6 6 8 , 104 S . C t . 2 0 5 2 , 80 L . E d . 2 d 674 (1984).'" W i l l i a m s , 783 S o . 2 d a t 133 ( q u o t i n g S t a t e v . C l a r k , 913 S.W. 2 d 3 9 9 , 406 (Mo. C t . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) ( f o o t n o t e 15 CR-08-1413 o m i t t e d ) ) . The t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t c i t e W i l l i a m s f o r purposes of that holding; rather, i t i s c l e a r that W i l l i a m s was c i t e d i n s u p p o r t o f t h e t r i a l court's c o n c l u s i o n t h a t S c o t t had f a i l e d to satisfy h i s b u r d e n o f p l e a d i n g u n d e r R u l e 3 2 . T h e r e i s no e r r o r i n c i t i n g and r e l y i n g upon a case f o r a p a r t i c u l a r p r o p o s i t i o n o f l a w when t h a t c a s e h a s b e e n r e v e r s e d on a g r o u n d o t h e r t h a n t h e s p e c i f i c p r o p o s i t i o n o f l a w b e i n g r e l i e d u p o n . The t r i a l c o u r t ' s c i t a t i o n t o W i l l i a m s i n t h i s case does n o t r i s e t o t h e l e v e l o f a m a t e r i a l and o b v i o u s e r r o r as c o n t e m p l a t e d by t h e h o l d i n g i n E x p a r t e I n g r a m , s u p r a . A c c o r d i n g l y , we do not consider the t r i a l court's citation to Williams as e v i d e n c e indicating that the trial court's order i s not a product of the t r i a l court's independent judgment. "More troubling i s Scott's contention that because the t r i a l court adopted verbatim the State's answer as i t s o r d e r , t h e o r d e r i s i n f e c t e d w i t h t h e same a d v e r s a r i a l z e a l o f t h e S t a t e ' s c o u n s e l a s i s t h e a n s w e r . S c o t t c o n t e n d s t h a t , a l t h o u g h an o r d e r p r e p a r e d by a p a r t y f o r t h e proposed a d o p t i o n by t h e trial court purports t o be d i s i n t e r e s t e d , the a d v e r s a r i a l z e a l of counsel a l l too often infects the adopted order of the t r i a l court, which i s supposed to contain d i s i n t e r e s t e d f i n d i n g s . See Cuthbertson v. B i g g e r s B r o s . , I n c . , 702 F . 2 d 454 (4th C i r . 1 9 8 3 ) . S c o t t c o n t e n d s t h a t an a n s w e r i s a p l e a d i n g that never i s prepared with the pretense of impartiality. We agree. As Scott contends, an answer, by i t s v e r y n a t u r e , i s a d v e r s a r i a l and s e t s f o r t h one p a r t y ' s p o s i t i o n i n t h e l i t i g a t i o n . I t m a k e s no c l a i m o f b e i n g an i m p a r t i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e f a c t s and l a w ; r a t h e r , i t i s a work o f a d v o c a c y t h a t e x h o r t s one p a r t y ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e l a w a s i t p e r t a i n s t o t h e r e l e v a n t f a c t s . The C o u r t of C r i m i n a l Appeals acknowledged the nature of the State's answer i n this case, stating that 'the pleading clearly advocated and sought summary d i s m i s s a l of the m a j o r i t y of Scott's claims.' Scott v. S t a t e , So. 3d a t . 16 CR-08-1413 " T h i s C o u r t s t a t e d i n Ex p a r t e I n g r a m t h a t t h e ' a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s m u s t be careful to evaluate a claim that a prepared order drafted by the p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y and a d o p t e d by the t r i a l court verbatim does not reflect the independent and impartial f i n d i n g s and conclusions of the trial c o u r t . ' Ex p a r t e I n g r a m , So. 3d a t (emphasis a d d e d ) . H e r e , we do n o t e v e n h a v e t h e b e n e f i t o f an o r d e r p r o p o s e d or ' p r e p a r e d ' by a p a r t y ; r a t h e r t h e order is a judicial i n c o r p o r a t i o n of a party's p l e a d i n g as t h e ' i n d e p e n d e n t and i m p a r t i a l f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . ' I d . a t . The first and most fundamental requirement of the r e v i e w i n g c o u r t i s to determine 'that the order and t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s i n s u c h o r d e r a r e i n f a c t those of the t r i a l c o u r t . ' I d . at . The trial court's verbatim adoption of the State's a n s w e r t o S c o t t ' s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n a s i t s o r d e r , b y its nature, violates this Court's holding in Ex p a r t e I n g r a m . A c c o r d i n g l y , we m u s t r e v e r s e t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s ' j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as i t a f f i r m s t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s a d o p t i o n o f t h e S t a t e ' s a n s w e r as i t s o r d e r , a n d we r e m a n d t h e c a s e t o t h e C o u r t of C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s w i t h d i r e c t i o n s to remand the case to the t r i a l c o u r t f o r t h a t c o u r t to r e v e r s e i t s order d i s m i s s i n g Scott's Rule 32 p e t i t i o n a n d to e n t e r a new o r d e r i n l i g h t o f t h i s o p i n i o n . " So. 3d The the did fact fact Here, denying . situation situations the not at circuit preside Miller's have p e r s o n a l in in this Ex j u d g e who at Rule case parte of the 17 and Miller's trial; 32 p e t i t i o n knowledge Ingram denied Miller's i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from Ex parte Rule 32 however, in Scott. petition the order the c o u r t d i d not p r o f e s s performance of M i l l e r ' s to trial CR-08-1413 counsel. base Furthermore, i t s order State's hearing Rule c i r c u i t court Miller's and after in this Rule answer to the Rule pleadings, Miller's brief denying initial numerous the 32 32 p e t i t i o n . the The State a proposed order denying with in his reply brief of circuit adopting nor did he proposed brief, file order this a was proposed filed does not fact, the several circuit months Furthermore, adopting the the before presented court d i d not after Miller State's proposed s p e c i f i c a l l y a f f i r m e d t h a t i t had filed of the by the p a r t i e s and arguments rendering put that forth i t s decision. (C. 2117, 18 of on post- possibility proposed the submitted order, State's his reply ignored the reply brief. In its final filed his order until reply brief. o b j e c t i o n to the Court's order, the considered i t had in to the in Miller's i n response to M i l l e r ' s hearing s t a t e d above, c i r c u i t court issue after post-hearing Although Miller the As State's order. mean t h a t arguments subsequently its the p e t i t i o n . neither objected court's the submission Miller the not Rather, evidentiary submitted did upon petition 32 c l a i m s , t h e c o u r t a l l o w e d briefs. case circuit a l l the "carefully a l l the 2131.) court pleadings weighed submissions" each before CR-08-1413 In circuit light of these court's order the are confident and not merely an that the unexamined o r d e r s u b m i t t e d by t h e S t a t e . M o r e o v e r , reasons set forth findings court's we i s i t s own a d o p t i o n of a proposed for facts, are not below, we "clearly hold that the circuit erroneous." II. During new his direct attorneys Miller appeal. of brief, presents a s s i s t a n c e of t h o u g h he the on claims appeal can in numerous two his and claims claims and amended be petition, grouped in and/or context i n his brief essentially on appellate counsel o f t e n commingles claims in a different presented arguments Miller even presents those he motion-for-new-trial proceedings ineffective and following by ineffective Although subclaims represented conviction. the appointed was his in were Miller that h i s a p p e l l a t e counsel rendered argues assistance his who appeal, than Miller's into four parts. First, the lack Miller of an c l a i m s t h a t because of time available counsel filed the counsel should not motion trial transcript for new a have p r e s e n t e d 19 trial, constraints and when appellate his appellate ineffective-assistance-of- CR-08-1413 trial-counsel c l a i m s i n t h e m o t i o n f o r a new brief, at II(A), maintains to r a i s e motion 24-28; M i l l e r ' s a new trial circuit court precluded 32 p e t i t i o n , dismissed assistance-of-trial-counsel Second, present Miller claims of argues that ineffective Miller to thoroughly maintains, (Miller's brief, his made decision being later by t h e f a c t 32 that ineffective- the at 27.) decision to counsel in a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l had an a s s i s t a n c e of investigate I I ( B ) ( 1 ) at Rule having appellate Miller (Miller's brief, the m o t i o n - f o r - n e w - t r i a l p r o c e e d i n g s , obligation claims as e v i d e n c e claims. a t 11.) counsel c l a i m s i n the those Miller's (Miller's ill-informed ineffective-assistance-of-trial considered i n a Rule the reply brief, that his appellate counsel's for trial. trial those counsel 28-33; M i l l e r ' s claims, failed reply which, to do. brief, at 11-13.) Third, Miller asserts that his appellate counsel t o a d e q u a t e l y a r g u e and s u p p o r t t h e trial for c o u n s e l t h a t were p r e s e n t e d a new trial and 33-124; M i l l e r ' s his argument, on appeal. reply Miller brief, ineffective-assistance-ofi n t h e h e a r i n g on t h e (Miller's at 13-38.) incorporates a 20 failed brief, motion II(B)(2), at In t h a t p o r t i o n of number of his claims of CR-08-1413 ineffective had his assistance counsel, counsel appellate of t r i a l and properly he presented i n e f f e c t i v e - a s s i s t a n c e - o f - t r i a l - c o u n s e l claims on the motion those Miller present Miller of he additional trial would at the have counsel allegations i n the motion a l l e g e s t h a t had h i s a p p e l l a t e supported trial those proceedings to r e l i e f . brief, a d d i t i o n a l claims a n d on a p p e a l , (Miller's at hearing prevailed on brief, addressing general When States ineffective for a counsel new trial. properly raised i n the motion-for-new- he w o u l d h a v e b e e n II(C), we Miller's principles assistance-of-counsel counsel, of failed entitled a t 124-48; M i l l e r ' s reply 39.) Before the trial, those contends that h i s a p p e l l a t e counsel numerous assistance and new that claims. Fourth, to for a argues Supreme of law claims, we regarding set forth ineffective- claims. reviewing apply specific the claims of standard ineffective articulated assistance by the United C o u r t i n S t r i c k l a n d v . W a s h i n g t o n , 466 U.S. (1984). To prevail on a claim counsel, t h e p e t i t i o n e r must of i n e f f e c t i v e establish: 21 (1) assistance that of 668 of counsel's CR-08-1413 performance was deficient; p r e j u d i c e d by t h e d e f i c i e n t parte Lawley, 512 So. 2d and (2) that performance. 1370, 1372 the petitioner 466 U.S. a t 687; ( A l a . 1987). "'Judicial scrutiny of counsel's p e r f o r m a n c e m u s t be h i g h l y d e f e r e n t i a l . I t i s a l l too tempting f o r a defendant to second-guess counsel's assistance after c o n v i c t i o n o r a d v e r s e s e n t e n c e , and i t i s all too easy for a court, examining counsel's defense after i t has proved u n s u c c e s s f u l , to conclude that a p a r t i c u l a r act or omission of counsel was u n r e a s o n a b l e . C f . E n g l e v . I s a a c , 456 U.S. 1 0 7 , 1 3 3 - 3 4 , 102 S. C t . 1 5 5 8 , 71 L . E d . 2 d 783 ( 1 9 8 2 ) . A f a i r a s s e s s m e n t o f a t t o r n e y p e r f o r m a n c e r e q u i r e s t h a t e v e r y e f f o r t be made t o e l i m i n a t e t h e d i s t o r t i n g e f f e c t s o f h i n d s i g h t , to r e c o n s t r u c t the circumstances of c o u n s e l ' s c h a l l e n g e d c o n d u c t , and to evaluate the conduct from counsel's p e r s p e c t i v e at the time. Because of the difficulties inherent in making the e v a l u a t i o n , a c o u r t must i n d u l g e a s t r o n g presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that i s , the d e f e n d a n t must overcome t h e presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action "might be considered sound trial strategy." See Michel v. L o u i s i a n a , [350 U.S. 9 1 ] , a t 101 [(1955)]. There are countless ways to provide effective assistance i n any g i v e n c a s e . Even the b e s t c r i m i n a l defense attorneys would not defend a p a r t i c u l a r c l i e n t i n the same way.' 22 was Ex CR-08-1413 "Strickland, 466 U.S. ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . As Court further stated: a t 6 8 9 , 104 S . C t . 2052 t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme "'[S]trategic choices made after thorough i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f law and f a c t s relevant to plausible options are v i r t u a l l y u n c h a l l e n g e a b l e ; a n d s t r a t e g i c c h o i c e s made a f t e r l e s s than complete i n v e s t i g a t i o n are reasonable precisely to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support t h e l i m i t a t i o n s on i n v e s t i g a t i o n . I n o t h e r words, counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations o r t o make a r e a s o n a b l e d e c i s i o n t h a t makes p a r t i c u l a r investigations unnecessary. In any i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s case, a p a r t i c u l a r decision not to investigate must be directly assessed f o r reasonableness i n a l l the c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a p p l y i n g a heavy measure o f deference t o counsel's judgments.' "Strickland, App. 466 U.S. a t 6 9 0 - 9 1 . "In Jones v. State, 1 9 9 9 ) , we s t a t e d : 753 S o . 2 d 1174 ( A l a . "'While counsel has a duty to investigate i n an attempt to locate evidence favorable to the defendant, "this duty only requires a reasonable investigation." Singleton v . T h i g p e n , 847 F.2d 6 6 8 , 669 ( 1 1 t h C i r . ( A l a . ) 1 9 8 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 488 U.S. 1 0 1 9 , 109 S . C t . 8 2 2 , 102 L.Ed. 2 d 812 ( 1 9 8 9 ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . S e e S t r i c k l a n d [ v . W a s h i n g t o n ] , 466 U.S. [ 6 6 8 ] a t 6 9 1 , 104 S . C t . [ 2 0 5 2 ] a t 2 0 6 6 , 80 L . E d . 2d 674 [ ( 1 9 8 4 ) ] ; M o r r i s o n v . S t a t e , 5 5 1 So. 2 d 435 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 98 9 ) , cert. d e n i e d , 495 U.S. 9 1 1 , 110 S. C t . 1 9 3 8 , 109 L.Ed. 2d 301 ( 1 9 9 0 ) . C o u n s e l ' s obligation i s to conduct a " s u b s t a n t i a l investigation 23 Crim. CR-08-1413 into each of the p l a u s i b l e lines of d e f e n s e . " S t r i c k l a n d , 466 U.S. a t 6 8 1 , 104 S.Ct. at 2061 (emphasis added). "A s u b s t a n t i a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s j u s t what t h e term implies; i t does n o t demand that counsel discover every shred of evidence but that a reasonable inquiry into a l l p l a u s i b l e d e f e n s e s b e made." I d . , 466 U.S. a t 6 8 6 , 104 S . C t . a t 2 0 6 3 . ' "'"The reasonableness of counsel's actions may be determined or substantially i n f l u e n c e d b y t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s own statements or actions. Counsel's actions are u s u a l l y based, quite properly, on i n f o r m e d strategic c h o i c e s made b y t h e d e f e n d a n t a n d on information supplied by t h e defendant. In p a r t i c u l a r , what investigation decisions are r e a s o n a b l e d e p e n d s c r i t i c a l l y on such information." "'Id., "753 466 U.S. a t 6 9 1 , 104 S . C t . a t 2 0 6 6 . ' So. 2d a t 1191. "'The purpose of ineffectiveness review i s not to grade counsel's performance. See Strickland [v. Washington], [ 4 6 6 U.S. 6 6 8 , ] 104 S . C t . [2052] a t 2065 [ 1 9 8 4 ) ] ; s e e a l s o W h i t e v . S i n g l e t a r y , 972 F . 2 d 1 2 1 8 , 1 2 2 1 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1992)("We a r e n o t i n t e r e s t e d i n grading l a w y e r s ' p e r f o r m a n c e s ; we a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n whether the a d v e r s a r i a l process a t t r i a l , i n f a c t , w o r k e d a d e q u a t e l y . " ) . We r e c o g n i z e that "[r]epresentation i s a n a r t , a n d an act or omission that i s u n p r o f e s s i o n a l in one c a s e may b e s o u n d o r e v e n b r i l l i a n t i n another." Strickland, [ 4 6 6 U.S. a t 6 9 3 , ] 24 CR-08-1413 104 S. C t . a t 2 0 6 7 . D i f f e r e n t l a w y e r s h a v e different gifts; this fact, as w e l l as d i f f e r i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s from case to case, means the range of what might be a r e a s o n a b l e a p p r o a c h a t t r i a l m u s t be b r o a d . To s t a t e t h e o b v i o u s : t h e t r i a l l a w y e r s , i n e v e r y c a s e , c o u l d have done s o m e t h i n g more o r s o m e t h i n g d i f f e r e n t . So, o m i s s i o n s a r e i n e v i t a b l e . But, the i s s u e i s not what i s possible or "what is prudent or appropriate, but only what is constitutionally compelled." Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 7 7 6 , 107 S. C t . 3 1 1 4 , 3126, 97 L . E d . 2d 638 (1987).' "Chandler v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 218 F.3d (11th C i r . 2000) ( f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d ) . " Ray, So. With the specific counsel As at above presented noted available principles filed, on of imposed ineffective Miller time first a new at the appellate counsel reply trial. brief, at turn claims time (Miller's 11.) brief, Miller 25 and to that the the should ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel for we Miller's a s s i s t a n c e of a p p e l l a t e constraints transcript his i n mind, appeal. above, trial 1313 . allegations judicially was 3d 1305, because lack of new-trial not have at 24-28; maintains that an motion presented c l a i m s i n the II(A), of motion Miller's appellate CR-08-1413 counsel's "ill-informed" ineffective new trial Rule 32 court assistance precluded petition, of t r i a l those as summarily decision dismissed before State this maintains Court claims later the fact Rule for a considered that the 32 of in a circuit ineffective- claims. that because a m e n d e d R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n by assert i n the motion being Miller's assistance-of-trial-counsel The counsel claims evidence to this i t was claim i s not not presented -- M i l l e r ' s properly in Miller's c l a i m i n h i s amended R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n was t h a t h i s a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l were i n e f f e c t i v e i n their of investigation and presentation ineffective assistance of t r i a l the for a motion ineffective of trial However, hearing i s before The c i r c u i t his appellate and on claims i n the motion Miller's petition. claim trial p e r se t o a s s e r t counsel evidentiary the new counsel present appeal, this court court under f o r our were 26 that trial. was court's of in i t was assistance (C. 3 5 2 - 5 6 . ) addressed these in order the denying circumstances, this consideration. found that M i l l e r counsel not of i n e f f e c t i v e and i n t h e c i r c u i t Accordingly, claims t h a t were p r e s e n t e d f o r a new claim the failed ineffective to prove for that presenting CR-08-1413 ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims n e w - t r i a l p r o c e e d i n g s and t h a t M i l l e r he was We quote relief p r e j u d i c e d by on extensively this appellate from the in the motion-for- f a i l e d to e s t a b l i s h counsel's circuit decision to court's order do so. denying claim: "In Ex p a r t e J a c k s o n , 598 So. 2 d 8 95 ( A l a . 1992), the Supreme Court of Alabama created a mechanism through which newly a p p o i n t e d appellate attorneys could raise ineffective assistance of t r i a l c o u n s e l c l a i m s i n a m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l and on a p p e a l . In p a r t i c u l a r , t h e c o u r t c r e a t e d an e x c e p t i o n to the requirement, set forth i n Rule 24.1(b) of the Alabama Rules of C r i m i n a l Procedure, t h a t a m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l m u s t be f i l e d 'no l a t e r t h a n t h i r t y (30) d a y s a f t e r s e n t e n c e i s p r o n o u n c e d . ' Id. at 897. The exception provided that newly appointed appellate attorney could f i l e a motion, w i t h i n f o u r t e e n days of b e i n g a p p o i n t e d to e x t e n d t h e 3 0 - d a y t i m e p e r i o d f o r f i l i n g t h e m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l . I d . Once t h a t m o t i o n , k n o w n as a 'Jackson m o t i o n , ' was f i l e d , t h e a t t o r n e y a u t o m a t i c a l l y w o u l d have t h i r t y days 'from the date the reporter's t r a n s c r i p t i s f i l e d ' t o f i l e a m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l . Id. The court reasoned that this exception was n e c e s s a r y b e c a u s e i t w o u l d e n a b l e new counsel to raise ' a l l appropriate issues before the trial court,' including claims alleging that the d e f e n d a n t ' s t r i a l c o u n s e l were i n e f f e c t i v e . I d . a t 897-898. "Acknowledging t h a t the J a c k s o n mechanism had c r e a t e d more p r o b l e m s i n p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n t h a n i t s o l v e d , t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f A l a b a m a , i n Ex p a r t e I n g r a m , 675 So. 2 d 8 6 3 , 865 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) , o v e r r u l e d Jackson o n l y 'to the e x t e n t t h a t i t a l l o w s newly a p p o i n t e d a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l t o move t o s u s p e n d the Rule 24.1(b), Ala. R. Crim. P., 30-day 27 that CR-08-1413 j u r i s d i c t i o n a l t i m e l i m i t f o r new t r i a l motions.' The Court d i d , however, s t r o n g l y encourage trial judges 'to attempt to f a c i l i t a t e newly appointed appellate counsel's efforts t o make new trial m o t i o n s b a s e d upon an a l l e g e d l a c k o f i n e f f e c t i v e c o u n s e l b e f o r e t h e Rule 24.1(b) time l i m i t e x p i r e s . ' Id. Because t h e Court o v e r r u l e d J a c k s o n o n l y t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t i tp e r m i t t e d a newly a p p o i n t e d a t t o r n e y t o move t o s u s p e n d t h e R u l e 2 4 . 1 ( b ) t i m e l i m i t f o r f i l i n g a m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l , t h e C o u r t , i n I n g r a m , l e f t i n t a c t Jackson's h o l d i n g that the ' f a i l u r e to include a reasonably a s c e r t a i n a b l e issue i n a motion for new t r i a l will result i n a bar to further argument of the issue on a p p e a l and i n p o s t c o n v i c t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s . ' J a c k s o n , 598 S o . 2 d a t 897 (emphasis added.) " A f t e r t h e Supreme C o u r t o f A l a b a m a i s s u e d i t s d e c i s i o n i n I n g r a m , t h e C o u r t a m e n d e d R u l e 32 o f t h e Alabama R u l e s o f C r i m i n a l Procedure by a d o p t i n g Rule 32.2(d). T h a t r u l e was a d o p t e d t o a d d r e s s c l a i m s o f i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l . Rule 32.2(d) o f the Alabama Rules o f C r i m i n a l Procedure provides t h a t , 'Any c l a i m t h a t c o u n s e l was i n e f f e c t i v e m u s t be r a i s e d a s s o o n a s p r a c t i c a b l e , e i t h e r a t t r i a l , on d i r e c t a p p e a l , o r i n t h e f i r s t R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n , w h i c h e v e r i s a p p l i c a b l e . ' S e e V.R. v . S t a t e , 852 S o . 2 d 1 9 4 , 199 n . 1 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) . "In R u s s e l l v . S t a t e , 8 8 6 So. 2d 123, 125-26 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003), t h e Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals held that the appellant's i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f t r i a l c o u n s e l c l a i m s were p r o c e d u r a l l y b a r r e d from r e v i e w , under Rule 32.2(a) of t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e , b e c a u s e they r e a s o n a b l y c o u l d have been p r e s e n t e d in a motion f o r new t r i a l a n d on d i r e c t appeal. In r e a c h i n g t h a t r e s u l t , t h e c o u r t h e l d t h a t a R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n e r ' s i n e f f e c t i v e assistance of t r i a l counsel claims w i l l be p r o c e d u r a l l y b a r r e d f r o m r e v i e w i f t h e t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e t r i a l was p r e p a r e d i n t i m e f o r a p p e l l a t e counsel to r a i s e those claims i n a timely 28 CR-08-1413 f i l e d m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l . I d . A t 1 2 6 . C f . V.R., 852 So. 2 d a t 202 (['A] defendant i s not p r e c l u d e d ... f r o m r a i s i n g an i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f t r i a l counsel claim f o r the f i r s t time i n a Rule 32 p e t i t i o n i f t h e t r i a l t r a n s c r i p t was n o t p r e p a r e d i n time f o r a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l to have r e v i e w e d the t r a n s c r i p t to a s c e r t a i n whether such a c l a i m was v i a b l e and t o p r e s e n t t h e c l a i m i n a t i m e l y filed m o t i o n f o r a new trial.'). "In s h o r t , Alabama law p r o v i d e s t h a t a d e f e n d a n t must r a i s e i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f t r i a l c o u n s e l c l a i m s as s o o n as ' p r a c t i c a b l e . ' See A l a . R. C r i m . P. 32.2(d). In a d d i t i o n , a R u l e 32 petitioner's i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of t r i a l c o u n s e l c l a i m s w i l l be procedurally barred from review, under Rule 32.2(a) of the Alabama Rules of C r i m i n a l Procedure, i f newly a p p o i n t e d a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l had the t r i a l transcript and raised (or r e a s o n a b l y c o u l d have raised) ineffective assistance of trial counsel c l a i m s i n the t r i a l c o u r t . That i s p r e c i s e l y what occurred here. "On J u l y 31, 2000, t h e t r i a l c o u r t s e n t e n c e d M i l l e r t o d e a t h . [ D i r e c t A p p e a l , C. 8 9 - 9 0 . ] D u r i n g the s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g , the t r i a l c o u r t s t a t e d that new c o u n s e l w o u l d be a p p o i n t e d f o r M i l l e r ' s a p p e a l . [ D i r e c t A p p e a l , R. 1 4 7 3 - 7 4 . ] Mr. W i l l i a m R. Hill, J r . a n d Mr. J . H a r a n L o w e , J r . ( ' a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l ' ) were s u b s e q u e n t l y a p p o i n t e d and f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r new trial on or about August 1, 2000. [Direct A p p e a l , C. 9 3 - 9 4 . ] I n a d d i t i o n , a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l f i l e d a 'Motion f o r the S t a t e of Alabama to P r o v i d e T r a n s c r i p t o f R e c o r d . ' [ D i r e c t A p p e a l , C. 9 1 - 9 2 . ] On A u g u s t 2 5 , 2 0 0 0 , a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l f i l e d an a m e n d e d motion for new trial alleging various claims i n c l u d i n g a c l a i m t h a t M i l l e r ' s due p r o c e s s r i g h t s were v i o l a t e d because of the i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s of trial counsel. [ D i r e c t A p p e a l , C. 7, 95-97.] On August 30, 2000, t h e t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d a j o i n t m o t i o n t o c o n t i n u e t h e h e a r i n g on M i l l e r ' s motion f o r new t r i a l u n t i l O c t o b e r 1 3 , 2 0 0 0 i n o r d e r f o r 29 CR-08-1413 t h e t r a n s c r i p t o f M i l l e r ' s t r i a l t o be completed. [ D i r e c t A p p e a l , C. 1 0 8 - 1 0 . ] A f t e r t h e t r i a l court granted M i l l e r funds for expert a s s i s t a n c e , the hearing on the motion f o r new trial was again c o n t i n u e d u n t i l D e c e m b e r 7, 2 0 0 0 . [ D i r e c t A p p e a l , C. 7, 132.] "The t r i a l c o u r t c o n d u c t e d h e a r i n g s on M i l l e r ' s m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l on D e c e m b e r 7, 2 0 0 0 a n d J a n u a r y 31, 2001. [Direct Appeal, Motion f o r New Trial Hearing, R. 4-176.] D u r i n g t h e D e c e m b e r 7, 2000 hearing, M i l l e r , through a p p e l l a t e counsel, c a l l e d his t r i a l c o u n s e l , Mickey Johnson, at the h e a r i n g and questioned him extensively regarding his p r e p a r a t i o n f o r and p e r f o r m a n c e d u r i n g h i s t r i a l as w e l l as h i s t r i a l s t r a t e g i e s . [ M o t i o n f o r New Trial Hearing, R. 4 - 1 1 0 . ] On January 31, 2001, Miller presented the testimony of Dr. Bob Wendorf, a clinical p s y c h o l o g i s t , to critique Dr. Scott's testimony during the p e n a l t y phase of Miller's t r i a l . [ D i r e c t A p p e a l , M o t i o n f o r New T r i a l H e a r i n g , 111-156.] M i l l e r a l s o c a l l e d A a r o n M c C a l l from the Alabama P r i s o n Program to d i s c u s s the role and availability of mitigation expert assistance. [Direct Appeal, Motion f o r New T r i a l Hearing, R. 157-175.] A f t e r the h e a r i n g , M i l l e r f i l e d a b r i e f i n support of motion f o r new trial and provided arguments i n support of h i s c l a i m s of ineffective a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l . [ D i r e c t A p p e a l , C. 1 1 4 - 2 5 . ] On F e b r u a r y 2 1 , 2 0 0 1 , the t r i a l c o u r t denied M i l l e r ' s motion f o r new trial. [Direct Appeal, C. 132.] M i l l e r s u b s e q u e n t l y f i l e d a b r i e f on a p p e a l i n the Alabama Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals, i n which he r a i s e d a number o f i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f t r i a l c o u n s e l c l a i m s . On r e m a n d f r o m t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l Appeals, the t r i a l court entered a written order p r o v i d i n g s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s of f a c t r e g a r d i n g the c l a i m s r a i s e d i n M i l l e r ' s m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l . [ ] I n 2 This Court initially remanded M i l l e r ' s case circuit court for that court to enter specific 2 30 to the written CR-08-1413 that order, the t r i a l court addressed Miller's i n e f f e c t i v e assistance of t r i a l counsel claims at length: 1) t h a t t r i a l counsel admitted Miller's g u i l t d u r i n g t h e g u i l t p h a s e o p e n i n g s t a t e m e n t s , 2) that t r i a l c o u n s e l f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t an i n s a n i t y defense during the g u i l t phase, 3) t h a t trial c o u n s e l f a i l e d t o move f o r a c h a n g e o f v e n u e , 4) that trial counsel failed to present a defense during the g u i l t phase of t r i a l , 5) t h a t trial c o u n s e l undermined t h e m i t i g a t i o n case d u r i n g t h e penalty phase opening statement, 6) t h a t trial counsel f a i l e d to o b j e c t t o v i c t i m impact testimony d u r i n g t h e p e n a l t y p h a s e , 7) t h a t t r i a l counsel failed to adequately i n v e s t i g a t e and p r e s e n t a p e n a l t y phase defense, a n d 8) t h a t t r i a l counsel f a i l e d to challenge the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of the heinous, atrocious, and cruel aggravating circumstance. "In reviewing those claims, the t r i a l court found a l l of Miller's claims of ineffective a s s i s t a n c e o f t r i a l c o u n s e l t o be w i t h o u t m e r i t Thus, the t r i a l court thoroughly reviewed and c o n s i d e r e d t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t was p r e s e n t e d a t t h e h e a r i n g o n M i l l e r ' s m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l . Based b o t h on t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s r e v i e w o f t h a t evidence and p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e o f what t r a n s p i r e d d u r i n g h i s t r i a l , the t r i a l court r e j e c t e d M i l l e r ' s i n e f f e c t i v e assistance of t r i a l counsel claims and denied relief. "On r e t u r n f r o m r e m a n d , t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l Appeals a f f i r m e d M i l l e r ' s c a p i t a l murder c o n v i c t i o n a n d d e a t h s e n t e n c e . M i l l e r v . S t a t e , 913 S o . 2 d 1 1 4 8 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004). I n i t s d e c i s i o n , t h a t Court f i n d i n g s of f a c t r e g a r d i n g each of the c l a i m s M i l l e r r a i s e d i n t h e h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l and t o e n t e r s p e c i f i c w r i t t e n findings of fact regarding the existence of the aggravating circumstance that the c a p i t a l m u r d e r was e s p e c i a l l y heinous, a t r o c i o u s , o r c r u e l , when c o m p a r e d t o other offenses. M i l l e r , 913 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 5 3 . 31 CR-08-1413 t h o r o u g h l y r e v i e w e d and r e j e c t e d h i s i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e - o f - t r i a l - c o u n s e l c l a i m s . M i l l e r , 913 So. 2d a t 1 1 6 1 - 6 3 . "As shown above, Miller, through appellate c o u n s e l , m o v e d t h i s C o u r t t o c o n t i n u e t h e h e a r i n g on h i s m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l u n t i l t h e t r i a l t r a n s c r i p t was completed to allow f o r a f u l l review of h i s ineffective a s s i s t a n c e of trial counsel claims. [ D i r e c t A p p e a l , C. 108-09.] G i v e n t h a t the trial court appointed appellate counsel to represent M i l l e r on o r a b o u t A u g u s t 1, 2 0 0 0 a n d t h e h e a r i n g on M i l l e r ' s m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l w e r e n o t h e l d u n t i l D e c e m b e r 7, 2 0 0 0 a n d J a n u a r y 3 1 , 2 0 0 1 , n e a r l y s i x months p a s s e d between the t r i a l c o u r t ' s a p p o i n t m e n t of appellate counsel and the completion of the hearing on Miller's motion for new trial. As a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l H i l l t e s t i f i e d d u r i n g t h e R u l e 32 h e a r i n g , t h i s l e n g t h y p e r i o d o f t i m e was u t i l i z e d t o study the t r a n s c r i p t of M i l l e r ' s t r i a l , review t r i a l counsel's files, conduct legal research, discuss strategy with appellate counsel Lowe, i n t e r v i e w Miller, talk with Miller's mother and otherwise prepare to l i t i g a t e M i l l e r ' s i n e f f e c t i v e - a s s i s t a n c e of-trial-counsel claims. [August 2008 Rule 32 H e a r i n g , R. 13, 6 0 - 6 2 . ] "Thus, Miller's newly appointed appellate counsel had a copy of h i s t r i a l transcript[ ], engaged in an in depth investigation of his i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f t r i a l c o u n s e l c l a i m s , and f u l l y l i t i g a t e d t h o s e c l a i m s a t t h e h e a r i n g on h i s m o t i o n f o r new trial." 3 (C. 1959-67.) (Emphasis According to hearing, the t r i a l 2000, and a p p e l l a t e N o v e m b e r 2, 2 0 0 0 . R. 23.) 3 in original.) the testimony elicited at the Rule 32 t r a n s c r i p t was c o m p l e t e d on O c t o b e r 20, c o u n s e l b e g a n r e v i e w i n g t h e t r a n s c r i p t on ( A u g u s t 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 E v i d e n t i a r y H e a r i n g , 32 CR-08-1413 The law circuit are court's supported determine whether deficient because argument that asserted claims the motion prepare is by even Miller's no remainder of t h i s requisite i f we were conclusions However, need counsel f o r the should of t r i a l was sake not as discussed M i l l e r has have to Miller throughout the f a i l e d to e s t a b l i s h the prejudice. "A d e f e n d a n t c l a i m i n g i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e S i x t h Amendment must demonstrate that: (1) counsel's performance was deficient, and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the outcome of the p r o c e e d i n g s . See Strickland, 466 U.S. a t 687, 104 S . C t . a t 20 64. ' U n l e s s a d e f e n d a n t makes b o t h s h o w i n g s , i t c a n n o t be said that the conviction or death sentence r e s u l t e d from a breakdown i n the a d v e r s a r y p r o c e s s that renders the r e s u l t u n r e l i a b l e . ' Id "Because the failure to demonstrate either d e f i c i e n t performance or p r e j u d i c e i s d i s p o s i t i v e of the claim against the p e t i t i o n e r , 'there i s no reason for a court deciding an ineffective a s s i s t a n c e c l a i m t o ... a d d r e s s b o t h c o m p o n e n t s o f t h e i n q u i r y i f t h e d e f e n d a n t m a k e s an i n s u f f i c i e n t s h o w i n g on o n e . ' S t r i c k l a n d , 4 66 U.S. a t 697 , 104 S . C t . a t 2 0 6 9 . A c c o r d i n g l y , we may c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r the petitioner s u f f e r e d p r e j u d i c e as a r e s u l t of 33 of counsel i n to support those claims, because, of not performance t o assume assistance we without having s u f f i c i e n t time case opinion, and counsel's appellate trial relief of f a c t record. of i n e f f e c t i v e f o r a new due the appellate a comprehensive still findings CR-08-1413 counsel's alleged errors without f i r s t evaluating t h e a d e q u a c y o f c o u n s e l ' s p e r f o r m a n c e . See i d . ; s e e a l s o M c C l a i n v . H a l l , 552 F . 3 d 1 2 4 5 , 1 2 5 1 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2008) ('We may decline to decide whether the performance of counsel was d e f i c i e n t i f we a r e convinced that [the petitioner] was not p r e j u d i c e d ' ) . I n f a c t , t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s made c l e a r t h a t ' [ t ] h e o b j e c t o f an i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s c l a i m is not to grade counsel's performance' and therefore, ' [ i ] f i t i s easier to dispose o f an ineffectiveness claim on t h e g r o u n d of lack of s u f f i c i e n t p r e j u d i c e , w h i c h we e x p e c t w i l l o f t e n b e s o , t h a t c o u r s e s h o u l d b e f o l l o w e d . ' S t r i c k l a n d , 466 U.S. a t 6 9 7 , 104 S. C t . a t 2 0 6 9 . " Windom v. Secretary, (11th Cir. 2009), Dep't cert. , 130 S. C t . 2 3 6 7 In of Corr., denied, 578 F . 3 d 1 2 2 7 , 1 2 4 8 Windom v. M c N e i l , U.S. (2010). the second part of h i s argument, M i l l e r contends that h a v i n g made t h e d e c i s i o n t o p r e s e n t i n e f f e c t i v e - a s s i s t a n c e - o f trial-counsel claims counsel h a d an claims, which, (Miller's obligation he brief, i n t h e m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l , claims, to thoroughly appellate appellate investigate counsel I I ( B ) ( 1 ) , a t 28-33; M i l l e r ' s failed those t o do. reply brief, at 11-15.) S p e c i f i c a l l y , M i l l e r alleges that h i s appellate investigation because, of t r i a l he c l a i m s : counsel's representation (1) a p p e l l a t e 34 counsel counsel's was d e f i c i e n t d i d not speak with CR-08-1413 trial counsel files, or for nor twice new of Miller's trial; before appellate the (2) the the on did did the not on not interview not was not, witness, and counsel's trial witnesses or with for a new speak time trial; with the h e a r i n g counsel's alleged (6) appellate gather and evaluate counsel, records, and and therefore, appellate counsel incompetence counsel were documents (5) testified that had records, of the appellate counsel 35 preparing for appellate family, therefore counsel that could appellate of have counsel as t h e m i t i g a t i o n not learn of with Dr. failing to gathered by in been educational Human Resources criminal records, psychological d i d not (3) records, Department State's trial; dealing not only Miller's did in motion Miller (4) ineffective f a m i l y m e n t a l h e a l t h and reports (7) trial; i n c l u d i n g M i l l e r ' s medical employment records, M i l l e r at the a new adequate for for met motion S c o t t , who therefore Scott; files counsel the presented f a i l e d t o i n t e r v i e w Dr. trial trial l e a r n of p o s s i b l e m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e been, but trial or s p e a k t o any spend motion file in preparation appellate f r i e n d s , or coworkers b e f o r e did court family hearing counsel hearing counsel review did appellate counsel members a or experts; effectively and and evaluate CR-08-1413 trial counsel's performance trial counsel's inadequate Although his brief Miller to investigation trial claims claims circuit were court performance i.e., the addressed court preparation, regard (C. to the his of court's and order whole the 32 of As a result, this of claim ineffective- motion-for-new-trial does not lend court's performance prong new trial of circuit itself to findings appellate proceedings: "In paragraphs 280-288 [C. 352-56] of his amended p e t i t i o n , M i l l e r a l l e g e s t h a t h i s a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l were i n e f f e c t i v e d u r i n g t h e i r i n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d p r e p a r a t i o n f o r h i s m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l and on d i r e c t a p p e a l . M i l l e r c l a i m s t h a t h i s a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l w e r e i n e f f e c t i v e i n t h e f o l l o w i n g a r e a s : 1) 36 the proceedings, the to the of counsel's Because the p o r t i o n of the i n the alleged counsel's i n v e s t i g a t i o n , as assistance he appellate set f o r t h the c i r c u i t counsel's counsel's petition p i e c e m e a l e x c e p t i o n , we regard in motion-for-new- post-sentencing appellate on a p p e a l . a whole w i t h argument his i n the 352-56.) presentation addressing on appellate a s s i s t a n c e - o f - t r i a l - c o u n s e l c l a i m s i n the proceedings based i n v e s t i g a t i o n and p r e s e n t a t i o n the addressed and of presented deficient. with portion i n h i s amended R u l e that his appellate counsel's the this adequacy the proceedings, establish prejudice performance. limits the of or CR-08-1413 that his appellate counsel did nothing to i n d e p e n d e n t l y i n v e s t i g a t e h i s case ( P a r a g r a p h s 282¬ 83) [C. 3 5 2 - 5 3 ] , 2) that appellate counsel were ineffective in arguing that trial counsel was i n e f f e c t i v e f o r w i t h d r a w i n g t h e i n s a n i t y d e f e n s e and f a i l i n g to p r e s e n t evidence i n the g u i l t phase to n e g a t e i n t e n t ( p a r a g r a p h 284) [C. 3 5 3 - 5 4 ] , 3) t h a t a p p e l l a t e counsel f a i l e d to obtain medical records f o r M i l l e r and h i s f a m i l y and f a i l e d t o have M i l l e r i n d e p e n d e n t l y e x a m i n e d by a m e n t a l health expert (Paragraphs 285-86) [C. 354-55], 4) and that a p p e l l a t e counsel f a i l e d to r a i s e a d d i t i o n a l claims of e r r o r d u r i n g the motion f o r new t r i a l such as trial counsel's allegedly i n e f f e c t i v e performance d u r i n g v o i r d i r e ( P a r a g r a p h s 2 8 7 ) [ C . 355-56.] " M i l l e r ' s c l a i m i s d e n i e d b e c a u s e he h a s f a i l e d to prove t h a t h i s a p p e l l a t e counsel's performance during the motion f o r new trial h e a r i n g and on d i r e c t a p p e a l was d e f i c i e n t a n d u n r e a s o n a b l e . M i l l e r a l s o f a i l e d to demonstrate t h a t a p p e l l a t e counsel's p e r f o r m a n c e was not the product of a strategic decision. "Miller's appellate counsel went to great lengths to fully investigate the issue of i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t r i a l c o u n s e l d u r i n g the h e a r i n g on Miller's motion f o r new trial. After being a p p o i n t e d as a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l f o r M i l l e r and f i l i n g a m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l , a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l o b t a i n e d s e v e r a l c o n t i n u a n c e s f o r t h e h e a r i n g on t h e motion for new t r i a l i n o r d e r f o r t h e t r i a l t r a n s c r i p t t o be prepared. [Direct Appeal, C. 132.] Appellate counsel u t i l i z e d t h i s time to i n v e s t i g a t e , r e s e a r c h and p r e p a r e t o p r e s e n t s e v e r a l c l a i m s o f i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of t r i a l c o u n s e l . " A p p e l l a t e counsel B i l l y H i l l t e s t i f i e d at the R u l e 32 h e a r i n g t h a t d u r i n g t h i s t i m e b e f o r e the t r i a l t r a n s c r i p t was c o m p l e t e d , he met w i t h M i l l e r i n t h e S h e l b y C o u n t y j a i l an o b t a i n e d g e n e r a l f a m i l y background information. [August 2008 Rule 32 37 CR-08-1413 H e a r i n g , R. 1 3 , 15.] Hill also t e s t i f i e d that he reviewed r e p o r t s of t r i a l c o u n s e l ' s conduct i n the l o c a l n e w s p a p e r s and b o t h H i l l and a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l Haran Lowe testified that they i n t e r v i e w e d and discussed the trial with Barbara M i l l e r , Alan's mother. [ A u g u s t 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 2 2 , 30, 84.] D u r i n g t h e i n t e r v i e w w i t h Ms. M i l l e r , a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l was alerted to the p o s s i b l e history of m e n t a l i l l n e s s i n M i l l e r ' s f a m i l y . [ A u g u s t 2008 R u l e 32 Hearing, R. 30-31.] As a result, appellate counsel attempted to o b t a i n access to the mental h e a l t h r e c o r d s o f M i l l e r ' s g r a n d f a t h e r and father f r o m B r y c e H o s p i t a l b u t was u n s u c c e s s f u l . [ A u g u s t 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 34, 86.] " H i l l a n d Lowe r e c e i v e d t h e t r i a l t r a n s c r i p t on November 2, 2000, studied the transcript and i d e n t i f i e d p o t e n t i a l e r r o r s and d e f e c t s i n trial c o u n s e l ' s p e r f o r m a n c e . [ A u g u s t 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 23, 84-85.] A f t e r examining the transcript, appellate counsel conducted l e g a l research, reviewed Dr. S c o t t ' s r e p o r t of h i s e v a l u a t i o n of Miller, a c q u i r e d and r e v i e w e d [ l e a d ] t r i a l c o u n s e l J o h n s o n ' s e n t i r e case f i l e , and g a t h e r e d newspaper articles about M i l l e r ' s t r i a l t h a t were w r i t t e n i n the S h e l b y C o u n t y a r e a . [ A u g u s t 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 60.] Finally, Hill testified that they interviewed J o h n s o n i n p r e p a r a t i o n f o r t h e h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l . [ A u g u s t 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 36.] " B a s e d on t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d a f t e r s p e n d i n g a g r e a t d e a l of time t h i n k i n g about M i l l e r ' s case, Hill testified that he identified several major concerns regarding t r i a l counsel's performance. [August 2008 Rule 32 Hearing, R. 41-43, 58.] Specifically, Hill stated t h a t he was concerned about t r i a l c o u n s e l Johnson's f a i l u r e to p r e s e n t a mental c a p a c i t y argument d u r i n g the g u i l t phase, that Johnson dropped the i n s a n i t y defense, that J o h n s o n had a ' d e f e a t i s t a t t i t u d e ' and t h a t t h e r e was significant pre-trial publicity. [ A u g u s t 2008 Rule 32 Hearing, R. 41-42.] Accordingly, Hill 38 CR-08-1413 t e s t i f i e d that those claims argument f o rr e f o r new t r i a l . h e f o c u s e d on p r e p a r i n g t o p r e s e n t that would provide the strongest l i e f d u r i n g t h e h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n [ A u g u s t 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 6 3 . ] "To address the specific concerns regarding t r i a l counsel's performance, H i l l c a l l e d Johnson t o testify during t h e December 7, 2000, hearing. [ D i r e c t A p p e a l , M o t i o n f o r New T r i a l H e a r i n g , R. 4¬ 110.] During the e v i d e n t i a r y hearing, H i l l s t a t e d his s t r a t e g i c p u r p o s e f o r c a l l i n g J o h n s o n [ w a s ] : 1) t o e m p h a s i z e s t a t e m e n t s made b y J o h n s o n b e f o r e t r i a l t h a t w e r e p r e j u d i c i a l , 2) t o show t h a t e s s e n t i a l l y no m i t i g a t i o n t e s t i m o n y was p r e s e n t e d , a n d 3) t h a t t r i a l counsel d i dnot present mental h e a l t h evidence during t h e case i n chief. [August 2008 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 4 3 . ] "A r e v i e w o f a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l ' s q u e s t i o n i n g o f J o h n s o n d u r i n g t h e D e c e m b e r 7, 2 0 0 0 m o t i o n f o r new trial hearing demonstrates that H i l l thoroughly e x a m i n e d J o h n s o n on t h o s e i s s u e s . The f o c a l p o i n t o f H i l l ' s e x a m i n a t i o n o f J o h n s o n c e n t e r e d on J o h n s o n ' s s t r a t e g y d u r i n g t h e g u i l t phase o f M i l l e r ' s t r i a l . [ M o t i o n f o r New T r i a l H e a r i n g , R. 1 4 - 1 7 , 2 9 - 3 7 . ] H i l l s p e c i f i c a l l y a s k e d J o h n s o n w h e t h e r he a c t u a l l y had a t h e o r y o f d e f e n s e t o the charge of c a p i t a l m u r d e r . [ M o t i o n f o r New T r i a l H e a r i n g , R. 1 4 . ] A f t e r J o h n s o n s t a t e d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e o f g u i l t was t o o o v e r w h e l m i n g , H i l l t h e n p r o b e d J o h n s o n on why h e d i d not have Dr. S c o t t 'make a n e x a m i n a t i o n as t o whether o r n o t h i s d e l u s i o n a l d i a g n o s i s c o u l d have i m p a c t e d h i s a b i l i t y t o form a s p e c i f i c i n t e n t ' so that a manslaughter defense c o u l d have been argued during the g u i l t phase. [Motion f o r New Trial H e a r i n g , R. 1 6 . ] H i l l t h e n e l i c i t e d t e s t i m o n y from J o h n s o n t h a t he d i d n o t u s e t h e r e a d i l y available e v i d e n c e i n D r . S c o t t ' s r e p o r t t h a t M i l l e r was i n a delusional state, made no attempts to shoot w i t n e s s e s , made no a t t e m p t t o c o v e r up t h e c r i m e , a n d t h a t M i l l e r d i d n o t u n d e r s t a n d w h a t was g o i n g o n to argue d u r i n g t h e g u i l t phase t h a t M i l l e r c o u l d 39 CR-08-1413 not form specific intent necessary to sustain a c o n v i c t i o n f o r c a p i t a l m u r d e r . [ M o t i o n f o r New T r i a l H e a r i n g , R. 2 8 - 2 9 , 3 6 - 3 7 . ] F i n a l l y , i n r e s p o n s e t o Hill's q u e s t i o n i n g , Johnson agreed that he h a d 'conceded the g u i l t phase of t h i s case.' [Motion f o r New T r i a l H e a r i n g , R. 3 5 . ] " N e x t , H i l l i n t r o d u c e d r e p o r t s f r o m a number o f newspapers, i n c l u d i n g t h e B i r m i n g h a m News, which preceded Miller's trial. [Motion f o r New Trial H e a r i n g , R. 5 0 . ] H i l l t h e n q u e s t i o n e d J o h n s o n on why he was n o t c o n c e r n e d t h a t c o m m e n t s J o h n s o n made i n t h e B i r m i n g h a m News r e g a r d i n g t h e w i t h d r a w a l o f t h e i n s a n i t y p l e a c o u l d have been p r e j u d i c i a l . [Motion for New Trial Hearing, R. 52.] H i l l then asked Johnson whether he was aware of the extensive coverage o f M i l l e r ' s c a s e a n d why J o h n s o n d i d n o t move f o r a c h a n g e o f v e n u e . [ M o t i o n f o r New Trial H e a r i n g , R. 5 4 . ] " F i n a l l y , H i l l questioned Johnson r e g a r d i n g h i s t r i a l s t r a t e g y d u r i n g the p e n a l t y phase, Johnson's investigation of mitigating evidence and the presentation of m i t i g a t i o n evidence during the p e n a l t y p h a s e . [ M o t i o n f o r New T r i a l H e a r i n g , R. 1 7 ¬ 25, 65-70.] Johnson t e s t i f i e d that h i s strategy d u r i n g the p e n a l t y phase i n v o l v e d p r e s e n t i n g the t e s t i m o n y o f Dr. S c o t t t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t M i l l e r s u f f e r e d f r o m a d i m i n i s h e d c a p a c i t y . [ M o t i o n f o r New Trial Hearing, R. 17-18.] Hill then repeatedly q u e s t i o n e d J o h n s o n on t h e r e a s o n s he d i d n o t p r e s e n t additional mitigating evidence such as testimony concerning Miller's bad relationship with h i s f a t h e r , t h e t e s t i m o n y o f M i l l e r ' s f a m i l y members, s p e c i f i c a l l y h i s mother, Barbara M i l l e r , c o n c e r n i n g Miller's background and evidence of Miller's grandfather's psychiatric issues. [ M o t i o n f o r New T r i a l H e a r i n g , R. 2 0 - 2 4 , 6 5 - 6 8 . ] "In a f u r t h e r a t t e m p t t o p r o v e t h e t r i a l c o u n s e l was i n e f f e c t i v e i n t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f m e n t a l h e a l t h e v i d e n c e , a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l sought and were g r a n t e d 40 CR-08-1413 funds to hire Dr. Bob Wendorf, a clinical p s y c h o l o g i s t who t e s t i f i e d a t t h e J a n u a r y 3 1 , 2 0 0 1 h e a r i n g on M i l l e r ' s m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l . [Direct A p p e a l , C. 1 3 2 . ] A p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l H i l l s t a t e d t h a t he made a s t r a t e g i c d e c i s i o n t o c a l l D r . W e n d o r f i n order to show that based on the information available in Dr. Scott's report, there were a d d i t i o n a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l d i a g n o s e s t h a t c o u l d have p e r t a i n e d t o M i l l e r t h a t were n o t p u r s u e d by t r i a l counsel. [ A u g u s t 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 4 4 , 7 0 . ] S p e c i f i c a l l y , b a s e d on t h e i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n Dr. S c o t t ' s r e p o r t t h a t M i l l e r d e s c r i b e d h i m s e l f as being i n a dream s t a t e d u r i n g t h e s h o o t i n g s , Dr. Wendorf t e s t i f i e d t h a t such a c t i o n s were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h symptoms o f a d i s s o c i a t i v e d i s o r d e r s u c h as post-traumatic stress disorder or multiple p e r s o n a l i t y d i s o r d e r . [ M o t i o n f o r New T r i a l Hearing, R. 1 4 4 - 4 6 . ] H i l l t h e n e l i c i t e d f r o m D r . W e n d o r f t h a t t h e e f f e c t s o f s u c h d i s o r d e r s c o u l d h a v e h a d an i m p a c t on t h e a b i l i t y t o f o r m i n t e n t . [ M o t i o n f o r New T r i a l H e a r i n g , R. 1 4 7 . ] "Finally, i n an e f f o r t to prove that trial counsel had not presented adequate mitigation evidence during the p e n a l t y phase, a p p e l l a t e counsel c a l l A a r o n M c C a l l , an e m p l o y e e o f t h e A l a b a m a P r i s o n Project to t e s t i f y during the January 31, 2001 h e a r i n g . [ M o t i o n f o r New T r i a l H e a r i n g , R. 1 5 7 - 1 7 5 . ] H i l l t e s t i f i e d during the e v i d e n t i a r y hearing that the s t r a t e g i c purpose f o r c a l l i n g McCall was t o p r o v e t h a t a q u a l i f i e d m i t i g a t i o n e x p e r t w i t n e s s was a v a i l a b l e to conduct a f u l l m i t i g a t i o n i n v e s t i g a t i o n of M i l l e r ' s l i f e . [ A u g u s t 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 49.] I n f a c t , i n an e f f o r t to demonstrate that mitigation experts were a v a i l a b l e a t t h e t i m e o f M i l l e r ' s t r i a l , a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l Lowe i n t r o d u c e d a l e t t e r sent by M c C a l l t o t r i a l c o u n s e l Johnson i n A u g u s t o f 1999 i n w h i c h t h e A l a b a m a P r i s o n P r o j e c t offered services and assistance in providing m i t i g a t i n g evidence f o r the t r i a l . [ M o t i o n f o r New T r i a l H e a r i n g , R. 1 5 8 - 6 0 . ] 41 CR-08-1413 "The evidence p r e s e n t e d d u r i n g the Rule 32 e v i d e n t i a r y hearing demonstrates that both appellate counsel vigorously investigated Miller's case i n p r e p a r a t i o n f o r p r e s e n t i n g a case of ineffective a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l and a d e q u a t e l y p r e s e n t e d s u c h c l a i m s d u r i n g t h e D e c e m b e r 7, 2 0 0 0 a n d J a n u a r y 31 2001 h e a r i n g s on M i l l e r ' s m o t i o n f o r new trial. M i l l e r h a s n o t met t h e b u r d e n o f d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t his a p p e l l a t e counsel's performance was deficient u n d e r t h e f i r s t S t r i c k l a n d p r o n g . M i l l e r has f a i l e d to establish that appellate counsel's performance was s o u n r e a s o n a b l e t h a t no c o m p e t e n t c o u n s e l w o u l d have investigated and presented claims of i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of t r i a l c o u n s e l d u r i n g the m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l h e a r i n g a n d on d i r e c t a p p e a l i n the m a n n e r i n w h i c h a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l H i l l a n d Lowe p r e s e n t e d M i l l e r ' s c a s e . See G r a y s o n v . T h o m p s o n , 257 F. 3d 1 1 9 4 , 1216 (11th C i r . 2001). " C o n t r a r y t o M i l l e r ' s c l a i m s i n p a r a g r a p h 282 o f his amended p e t i t i o n t h a t a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l d i d n o t i n t e r v i e w f a m i l y m e m b e r s , H i l l a n d Lowe s p e c i f i c a l l y stated that they interviewed Barbara Miller in p r e p a r a t i o n f o r t h e h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n f o r new trial. [ A u g u s t 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 3 0 , 84.] Contrary to M i l l e r ' s claims that a p p e l l a t e counsel d i d n o t o b t a i n any documents p e r t a i n i n g t o M i l l e r ' s l i f e and b a c k g r o u n d , b o t h o f h i s a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l testified that they u n s u c c e s s f u l l y attempted to o b t a i n M i l l e r ' s f a m i l y p s y c h i a t r i c r e c o r d s . [August 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 34, 86.] Simply because appellate c o u n s e l were u n s u c c e s s f u l i n o b t a i n i n g these records does not demonstrate deficient performance. Furthermore, even i f the mental h e a l t h r e c o r d s o f M i l l e r ' s f a m i l y members w e r e o b t a i n e d , Miller has failed to e s t a b l i s h t h a t a competent a t t o r n e y would have i n t r o d u c e d such r e c o r d s . Both Hill a n d Lowe t e s t i f i e d that i n their extensive e x p e r i e n c e d e f e n d i n g c a p i t a l murder c a s e s , n e i t h e r had i n t r o d u c e d the p s y c h i a t r i c or m e d i c a l r e c o r d s of a d e f e n d a n t ' s e x t e n d e d f a m i l y . [ A u g u s t 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 69, 103.] 42 CR-08-1413 "Furthermore, although H i l l t e s t i f i e d that he d i d n o t i n t e r v i e w o t h e r f a m i l y members o r a c c u m u l a t e other documents, Miller failed to present any e v i d e n c e d u r i n g t h e e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g as t o why a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l d i d not conduct f u r t h e r i n t e r v i e w s o r o b t a i n more o f M i l l e r ' s r e c o r d s . M i l l e r f a i l e d t o q u e s t i o n a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l on t h e s t r a t e g i c r e a s o n s for how appellate counsel conducted their investigation in this regard. There i s a strong presumption that counsel's p e r f o r m a n c e was within the 'wide range of reasonable professional a s s i s t a n c e . ' G r a y s o n v . T h o m p s o n , 257 F. 3d 1194, 1216 (11th C i r . 2001). 'An ambiguous or silent r e c o r d i s not s u f f i c i e n t to d i s p r o v e the s t r o n g and c o n t i n u i n g p r e s u m p t i o n [because] where the r e c o r d i s i n c o m p l e t e or u n c l e a r about [counsel's] actions, [ t h e c o u r t ] w i l l p r e s u m e t h a t he d i d w h a t he should have done, and that he exercised reasonable p r o f e s s i o n a l j u d g m e n t . ' C h a n d l e r v. U n i t e d States, 218 F. 3d 1305, 1315, n. 15 (11th C i r . 2000). B e c a u s e t h e r e c o r d i s s i l e n t as t o why appellate c o u n s e l d i d n o t i n t e r v i e w more o f M i l l e r ' s family members and o b t a i n a d d i t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n a l , m e n t a l , or employment r e c o r d s , t h i s C o u r t must presume t h a t appellate counsel acted reasonably in representing M i l l e r . For t h a t reason, M i l l e r ' s c l a i m s should be denied. "Although M i l l e r claims that appellate counsel ineffectively argued that t r i a l counsel failed to present mental health evidence during the guilt phase t h a t would have n e g a t e d the i n t e n t f o r c a p i t a l m u r d e r , H i l l s p e c i f i c a l l y q u e s t i o n e d J o h n s o n on h i s failure to present evidence of Miller's mental c o n d i t i o n d u r i n g t h e g u i l t p h a s e . [ A u g u s t 2008 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 64.] H i l l t e s t i f i e d t h a t he a n d Lowe made a strategic decision to challenge trial counsel's performance in this regard during the g u i l t p h a s e . [ A u g u s t 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 66.] H i l l ' s strategy involved demonstrating that there was evidence within Dr. Scott's report that s u g g e s t e d M i l l e r d i d not a p p r e c i a t e the nature and 43 CR-08-1413 q u a l i t y of h i s acts, that t h i s evidence w o u l d be s i g n i f i c a n t i n mounting a defense t o c a p i t a l murder charges, a n d t h a t t h i s e v i d e n c e was n o t p r e s e n t e d during the g u i l t phase. [August 2008 Rule 32 H e a r i n g , R. 6 4 - 6 4 . ] Appellate counsel's strategic choices after conducting extensive legal research and r e v i e w o f t h e t r i a l t r a n s c r i p t and Dr. S c o t t ' s r e p o r t s h o u l d n o t be f o u n d t o be d e f i c i e n t . See B o y d v . S t a t e , 746 S o . 2 d 3 6 4 , 375 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) ('Strategic choices made after a thorough investigation of relevant law and facts are virtually unchallengeable.') The u l t i m a t e result that appellate counsel's s t r a t e g y t o attempt to demonstrate i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of t r i a l counsel was unsuccessful does not prove deficient performance of appellate counsel. See D a v i s v. S t a t e , [9 S o . 3 d 5 3 9 , 550 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2008)] ('"The fact that a particular defense was u n s u c c e s s f u l does n o t p r o v e i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of counsel."') ( q u o t i n g Chandler v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 218 F. 3 d 1 3 0 5 , 1 3 1 4 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) ) . " F i n a l l y , M i l l e r has not proved t h a t a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l were d e f i c i e n t under S t r i c k l a n d f o r f a i l i n g to present additional claims of ineffective a s s i s t a n c e of t r i a l counsel during the motion f o r new t r i a l h e a r i n g t h a t h a v e b e e n r a i s e d b y c u r r e n t p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n c o u n s e l . [ C . 3 5 5 - 5 6 . ] To c o n s t i t u t e e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e , 'an a t t o r n e y i s n o t r e q u i r e d to raise every conceivable constitutional claim a v a i l a b l e a t t r i a l a n d on a p p e a l . ' B o y d , 746 S o . 2 d at 376. Moreover, Hill testified during the e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g t h a t he h a d s t r a t e g i c reasons for presenting specific issues of ineffective a s s i s t a n c e o f t r i a l c o u n s e l ; H i l l t e s t i f i e d t h a t he f o c u s e d on p r e s e n t i n g t h e s t r o n g e s t c l a i m s during t h e m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l h e a r i n g . [ A u g u s t 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 6 3 . ] H i l l testified t h a t he made strategic d e c i s i o n s to focus on t r i a l counsel's f a i l u r e t o present evidence during the g u i l t phase, t r i a l c o u n s e l ' s f a i l u r e t o move f o r c h a n g e o f v e n u e , and t r i a l c o u n s e l ' s f a i l u r e t o e f f e c t i v e l y c h a l l e n g e 44 CR-08-1413 the a g g r a v a t i n g circumstance presented during the p e n a l t y p h a s e . [ A u g u s t 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 66¬ 67.] Miller has failed to establish that no competent counsel would have pursued such strategies. "For these reasons mentioned above, M i l l e r has f a i l e d t o meet h i s b u r d e n o f p r o o f of establishing that his appellate counsel's performance was deficient under Strickland; therefore Miller's ineffective assistance of appellate claims are without merit. Accordingly, these claims are denied." (C. 1977-1989.) The that circuit his appellate s u p p o r t e d by denied court's the Miller establish performance, counsel's record. relief that finding he was which this claim us to the his to prove deficient c i r c u i t court because by failed was event, the prejudiced bring Miller performance I n any on that Miller appellate third part is also failed to counsel's of Miller's argument. In had the third appellate claims of addressed appeal, he portion counsel ineffective in the would argument, M i l l e r adequately assistance motion have of h i s for been new argued of trial entitled 45 trial to and claims supported counsel that proceedings relief. and that the were on (Miller's CR-08-1413 brief, I I ( B ) ( 2 ) ( a ) - ( d ) a t 33-124; M i l l e r ' s reply brief at 15- 39.) Before forth addressing Miller's a summary o f t h e e v i d e n c e hearing on t h e m o t i o n f o r a new specific a l l e g a t i o n s , we s e t t h a t was p r e s e n t e d during the trial: " A t t h e h e a r i n g on M i l l e r ' s m o t i o n f o r a new trial, Mickey Johnson, Miller's [lead] trial c o u n s e l , t e s t i f i e d . J o h n s o n s t a t e d t h a t when he was appointed to represent Miller on t h e d a y o f t h e s h o o t i n g s , he h a d b e e n p r a c t i c i n g l a w f o r 25 y e a r s . He met with Miller shortly after Miller was a p p r e h e n d e d a n d a g a i n l a t e r t h a t n i g h t . T h a t same day, J o h n s o n a l s o met w i t h s e v e r a l P e l h a m p o l i c e o f f i c e r s and w i t h M i l l e r ' s mother. "Johnson had litigated capital-murder cases before he r e p r e s e n t M i l l e r . R o g e r B a s s was i cocounsel; however, when Bass B l a c k w o o d was a p p o i n t e d t o s e r v e five or six was a p p o i n t e d to nitially appointed withdrew, Ronnie as c o c o u n s e l . "Johnson met with Miller on a number of occasions before t r i a l . Before forming a strategy for Miller's case, Johnson reviewed a l l of the investigative reports, diagrams, statements, p h o t o g r a p h s , v i d e o t a p e s , a n d s c i e n t i f i c r e p o r t s ; he a l s o t a l k e d w i t h h i s c l i e n t . Johnson f i l e d a motion r e q u e s t i n g f u n d s f o r an i n d e p e n d e n t p s y c h o l o g i c a l e v a l u a t i o n o f M i l l e r . The t r i a l court granted h i s m o t i o n , and Johnson r e t a i n e d Dr. C h a r l e s S c o t t from the U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a t o e v a l u a t e Miller. After talking with Dr. S c o t t and r e v i e w i n g Dr. Scott's written report, Johnson determined that t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o r a i s e a n i n s a n i t y defense during the g u i l t phase. In h i s o p i n i o n , i t was b e t t e r t o p r e s e n t D r . S c o t t ' s t e s t i m o n y during the p e n a l t y phase because p r e s e n t i n g h i s testimony 46 CR-08-1413 at t h e g u i l t phase would have negated Dr. S c o t t ' s c r e d i b i l i t y and l e s s e n e d t h e p o t e n t i a l impact o f t h e e v i d e n c e d u r i n g t h e p e n a l t y p h a s e . J o h n s o n made t h i s decision after reviewing the reports from other mental-health evaluations of M i l l e r , which were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Dr. S c o t t ' s f i n d i n g s . "After reviewing the evidence, J o h n s o n made a strategic decision to concentrate h i s e f f o r t s and d e f e n s e on t h e p e n a l t y p h a s e o f t h e t r i a l . Inh i s o p i n i o n , t h e S t a t e ' s e v i d e n c e o f M i l l e r ' s g u i l t 'was too overwhelming t o s e r i o u s l y c o n t e s t , ' given t h a t he h a d no v a l i d l e g a l d e f e n s e f o r t h e g u i l t p h a s e . Accordingly, Johnson decided to concentrate on saving M i l l e r ' s life. "Johnson focused h i s e f f o r t s d u r i n g the g u i l t p h a s e on m a i n t a i n i n g c r e d i b i l i t y w i t h t h e j u r y . I n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h i s s t r a t e g y , he a d m i t t e d to the j u r y e a r l y on i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s that the evidence o f M i l l e r ' s g u i l t was s t r o n g b e c a u s e h e w a n t e d t o lessen the impact of the evidence against Miller. Johnson f e l t t h a t h i s duty d u r i n g t h e g u i l t phase was t o make t h e S t a t e m e e t i t s b u r d e n o f p r o o f . "During the p e n a l t y phase, Johnson presented a diminished-capacity defense. Through Dr. S c o t t ' s testimony, he presented two mitigating circumstances. He also argued the undisputed mitigating circumstance of no prior criminal h i s t o r y . During the p e n a l t y phase, Johnson argued t h a t t h e S t a t e had f a i l e d t o prove any a g g r a v a t i n g circumstances. He a l s o w a n t e d t o p o i n t o u t t o t h e jury that the mitigating circumstances were u n d i s p u t e d . J o h n s o n h o p e d t h a t t h e j u r y was l o o k i n g f o r a r e a s o n n o t t o recommend t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y , and t h a t h i s arguments would g i v e t h e j u r y a sound l e g a l basis f o r recommending a sentence of life imprisonment without the p o s s i b i l i t y of parole. Before the penalty Miller's parents and phase, Johnson t a l k e d w i t h other family members. He 47 CR-08-1413 c o n s i d e r e d c a l l i n g them as w i t n e s s e s . However, a f t e r t a l k i n g w i t h M i l l e r ' s f a m i l y , he d e t e r m i n e d t h a t i t was b e s t to present Miller's social and family h i s t o r y t h r o u g h Dr. S c o t t ' s t e s t i m o n y . In Johnson's o p i n i o n , D r . S c o t t was a c r e d i b l e w i t n e s s . Johnson a l s o b e l i e v e d t h a t the support M i l l e r had from h i s f a m i l y members d u r i n g t r i a l was a f f e c t i n g t h e j u r y i n a p o s i t i v e way. J o h n s o n b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e j u r o r s s y m p a t h i z e d w i t h M i l l e r ' s f a m i l y a n d he d i d n o t w a n t to d e t r a c t from t h i s sympathy by p u t t i n g family members on t h e s t a n d . "Miller presented testimony from two other w i t n e s s e s i n s u p p o r t o f h i s m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l . Dr. Bob W e n d o r f , a c l i n i c a l p s y c h o l o g i s t , testified t h a t b a s e d on h i s r e v i e w o f D r . S c o t t ' s r e p o r t , he believed there were other possible mitigating f a c t o r s Johnson c o u l d have p r e s e n t e d . M i l l e r also elicited testimony from Aaron McCall with the A l a b a m a P r i s o n P r o j e c t . M c C a l l i n d i c a t e d t h a t he h a d s e n t Johnson a l e t t e r i n August 1999, o f f e r i n g h i s services in Miller's case. However, McCall t e s t i f i e d , Johnson never responded to h i s l e t t e r . " Miller, 913 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 5 9 - 6 0 . Miller properly motion maintains present for ineffective defense and new support trial: the (1) the guilt-phase opening prejudiced h i s appellate f o r not presenting during counsel's failing a that Miller; to statement (3) t h a t adequately following that a mental counsel investigate and to i n the counsel were disease-or-defect of the t r i a l ; trial failed claims trial at the g u i l t 48 counsel (2) t h a t phase of the trial trial were i n e f f e c t i v e i n present available CR-08-1413 m i t i g a t i n g evidence (4) that trial prejudiced In order to i n the proceedings manner and (Ala. had Crim. that on 2000)("Because they his this claims of See trial counsel Payne cert. has denied, appellate counsel claim."). ineffective 791 to that had his supported was ineffective even a s s i s t a n c e of t r i a l of those appellate establish So. So. of 2d 2d trial 383, 408 establish that 401 (Ala. that claim i s meritorious, counsel have been the Miller's present claims in support of sufficiently new-trial his Miller argument presented and a m a j o r i t y of the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s order denying M i l l e r ' s Rule 32 entitled 49 to proceedings of fact, would in though to that on he claims for failing c o u n s e l were p r e c l u d e d , claims his and appeal, those claims by a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e e v i d e n c e Therefore, many 791 were new-trial assistance State, failed the i n the to f i r s t ineffective Payne v. 1999), f a i l e d to prove reasserted statement presented ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel he h a s opening appellate counsel a p p e a l , M i l l e r had merit. App. his i n which a s s i s t a n c e of underlying counsel penalty-phase establish ineffective his counsel's and Miller. ineffective of d u r i n g the p e n a l t y phase of the t r i a l ; relief. In CR-08-1413 petition i s addressed assistance 2d 109, claim the of t r i a l 110 of counsel. (Ala. Crim. ineffective claim must counsel's claims to the u n d e r l y i n g c l a i m s of be App. See Covington examined in Thus, regarding his t r i a l S t a t e , 671 So. 1 9 9 5 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t even though a s s i s t a n c e of performance). v. ineffective trial counsel is order to assess turn to Miller's we a barred, appellate specific counsel. 1 Miller for contends "withdrawing present guilt the available phase." reply appellate counsel trial that withdrawing defect. On his direct trial The insanity mental brief, counsel defense and health evidence (Miller's Miller's new that his t r i a l at then failing the trial's at 33-68; addressed above, 15-23.) As counsel the motion were court denied M i l l e r r e l i e f appeal, t h i s Court disease-or-defect plea c o u n s e l ' s d e c i s i o n was because we "made a f t e r 50 for withdrawing found that a thorough for disease on t h i s also rejected Miller's c o u n s e l were i n e f f e c t i v e for a ineffective h i s p l e a o f n o t g u i l t y by r e a s o n m e n t a l circuit to II(B)(2)(a), brief, trial ineffective during a s s e r t e d i n t h e h e a r i n g on Miller's were or claim. claim that his Miller's mentaltrial investigation of CR-08-1413 the 2d relevant law and f a c t s of M i l l e r ' s Miller, 913 S o . the plea of not a t 1161. Trial guilty counsel's by reason decision of mental his mental-health experts the Dr. S c o t t psychologist that Miller "insanity" argues d i d not Dr. S c o t t ' s disease or defect them w i t h sufficient conduct counsel's engaged meet to assist Alabama's the crimes factual were decision to withdraw entitled When were f a i l e d to provide he with which contends, trial not-guilty-by-reason-of- p l e a was u n r e a s o n a b l e b e c a u s e i t was b a s e d He a r g u e s t h a t h a d a p p e l l a t e a d e q u a t e l y argued and s u p p o r t e d t h i s proceedings and on of Miller evaluations information Thus, the definition committed. counsel and l e g a l evaluations. incomplete evaluations. new-trial after him, determined legal and Dr. McDermott's their mental-defect was made Dr. S c o t t and Dr. B a r b a r a McDermott, a t the time that to withdraw i n c o m p l e t e b e c a u s e , he c l a i m s , t r i a l to case." upon counsel claim i n the motion-for- appeal, he would have been to r e l i e f . denying relief on this claim, the c i r c u i t stated: " I n p a r a g r a p h s 138-147 o f h i s amended p e t i t i o n , M i l l e r claims that h i s t r i a l counsels' decision to 51 court CR-08-1413 withdraw the insanity defense was unreasonable. M i l l e r a l l e g e s t h a t t r i a l c o u n s e l s ' r e l i a n c e on D r . S c o t t and Dr. M c D e r m o t t ' s e v a l u a t i o n s i n d e c i d i n g t o w i t h d r a w t h e not g u i l t y by r e a s o n o f i n s a n i t y p l e a was i n e f f e c t i v e b e c a u s e he c l a i m s t r i a l c o u n s e l d i d not provide Dr. Scott with adequate background i n f o r m a t i o n t o s u p p o r t t h e e v a l u a t i o n . [Amended R u l e 32 P e t i t i o n , C. 308.] M i l l e r also claims that Dr. Scott's ultimate conclusion that M i l l e r was not i n s a n e was ' e q u i v o c a l ' a n d t h a t t r i a l c o u n s e l should have p r o v i d e d a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n and documents t o Dr. S c o t t and s o u g h t a d d i t i o n a l e x p e r t opinion. [ A m e n d e d R u l e 32 P e t i t i o n , C. 310.] " T h i s C o u r t d e n i e s M i l l e r ' s c l a i m b e c a u s e he h a s f a i l e d t o meet h i s b u r d e n of p r o o f o f d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t h i s t r i a l c o u n s e l ' s p e r f o r m a n c e was deficient u n d e r S t r i c k l a n d , 466 U.S. a t 688, A l a . R. C r i m . P. 32.7(d). Miller's trial counsel could not be deficient for withdrawing the insanity defense b e c a u s e none of t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l or psychiatric e x p e r t s who e v a l u a t e d M i l l e r b e f o r e t r i a l c o n c l u d e d t h a t M i l l e r met t h e l e g a l d e f i n i t i o n f o r i n s a n i t y . " M i l l e r , through counsel, o r i g i n a l l y pled not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. [ D i r e c t A p p e a l , C. 1.] To q u a l i f y u n d e r t h e legal d e f i n i t i o n of i n s a n i t y , M i l l e r bore the burden or d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t he 'was u n a b l e t o a p p r e c i a t e the nature and q u a l i t y or w r o n g f u l n e s s of h i s a c t s . ' Ala. Code § 13A-3-1. However, as demonstrated d u r i n g t r i a l a n d t h e [ R u l e 32] e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g , n o n e o f t h e f o u r m e n t a l h e a l t h e x p e r t s who examined M i l l e r c o n c l u d e d t h a t he was unable to appreciate the nature and quality of his actions. [Direct A p p e a l , R. 1 3 8 4 ; M o t i o n f o r New T r i a l Hearing, R. 7 2 - 7 4 ; F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 248.] "Dr. James H o o p e r , a p s y c h o l o g i s t a t t h e T a y l o r Hardin Medical F a c i l i t y , f i r s t evaluated M i l l e r and c o n c l u d e d i n h i s r e p o r t on O c t o b e r 8, 1999 that Miller 'does n o t h a v e a m e n t a l i l l n e s s t h a t w o u l d 52 CR-08-1413 have compromised h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the n a t u r e , q u a l i t y , or w r o n g f u l n e s s of h i s b e h a v i o r . ' [ M i l l e r ' s R u l e 32 E x h i b i t , 2 9 - 0 2 1 1 . ] D r . H a r r y M c C l a r e n , a p s y c h o l o g i s t h i r e d by t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a , also evaluated Miller to determine whether Miller qualified under Alabama's insanity statute. On D e c e m b e r 2, 1 9 9 9 , D r . M c C l a r e n u l t i m a t e l y c o n c l u d e d t h a t M i l l e r d i d n o t meet t h e l e g a l d e f i n i t i o n of i n s a n i t y a n d t h a t t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e t h a t he was u n a b l e t o a p p r e c i a t e t h e n a t u r e and q u a l i t y o f h i s a c t i o n s . [ M i l l e r ' s R u l e 32 E x h i b i t , 2 7 - 0 0 3 3 . ] " F i n a l l y , as n o t e d a b o v e , t r i a l c o u n s e l r e t a i n e d Dr. C h a r l e s S c o t t , a p s y c h i a t r i s t , f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r M i l l e r was l e g a l l y i n s a n e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e s h o o t i n g s . D r . S c o t t e n g a g e d i n an e x t e n s i v e e v a l u a t i o n of M i l l e r i n c l u d i n g a three-day assessment of M i l l e r h i m s e l f , i n t e r v i e w s of f a m i l y members, and t h e e x a m i n a t i o n o f numerous d o c u m e n t s a n d r e p o r t s . [ D i r e c t A p p e a l , R. 1 3 4 5 - 4 8 . ] D r . S c o t t a l s o r e t a i n e d Dr. B a r b a r a McDermott t o a d m i n i s t e r various psychological tests to M i l l e r . [February 2008 Rule 32 Hearing, R. 316] However, after c o n c l u d i n g t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , Dr. S c o t t s t a t e d i n his report that i n his opinion, Miller was not u n a b l e t o a p p r e c i a t e t h e n a t u r e and q u a l i t y o f h i s actions or the wrongfulness of his conduct. [ M i l l e r ' s R u l e 32 E x h i b i t , 2 9 - 0 0 2 2 ; D i r e c t A p p e a l , R. 1 3 8 4 , F e b r u a r y R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 251.] "Thus, t r i a l c o u n s e l c o u l d n o t have p r o v i d e d any expert o p i n i o n t e s t i m o n y to c r e d i b l y argue to the j u r y t h a t M i l l e r was l e g a l l y i n s a n e . Any argument that Miller was legally insane c o u l d have been effectively r e b u t t e d from Miller's own expert's c o n c l u s i o n t h a t he was n o t i n s a n e . [ D i r e c t A p p e a l , R. 1 3 8 4 . ] J o h n s o n t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was aware of e a c h o f t h e s e r e p o r t s and t h a t n e i t h e r Dr. H o o p e r ' s , nor Dr. McClaren's, nor Dr. Scott's reports c o n f l i c t e d on t h e i s s u e o f M i l l e r ' s s a n i t y a t t h e t i m e o f t h e o f f e n s e . [ M o t i o n f o r New T r i a l H e a r i n g , R. 7 3 - 7 4 ; F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 251.] 53 CR-08-1413 Johnson t e s t i f i e d t h a t a f t e r r e c e i v i n g Dr. S c o t t ' s r e p o r t , he d i s c u s s e d t h e f i n d i n g s w i t h D r . S c o t t a n d u l t i m a t e l y decided to withdraw the i n s a n i t y defense on May 2 4 , 2 0 0 0 [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 91-92.] Johnson stated during the [Rule 32] e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g t h a t i f any o f t h e f o u r d o c t o r s who e v a l u a t e d M i l l e r h a d d e c l a r e d t h a t M i l l e r was insane at the time of the offense, such a f i n d i n g w o u l d h a v e a l t e r e d h i s s t r a t e g y a n d t h a t he w o u l d have used t h a t opinion as p a r t of h i s defense. [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 2 4 8 . ] "Trial counsel's decision to withdraw the i n s a n i t y p l e a was n o t an u n r e a s o n a b l e d e c i s i o n . The withdrawal o f t h e i n s a n i t y d e f e n s e was t h e p r o d u c t o f a s t r a t e g i c d e c i s i o n made a f t e r b o t h c o n s u l t a t i o n with a mental health expert h i r e d f o r the express purpose of evaluating Miller's sanity and c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a d d i t i o n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n and e x p e r t o p i n i o n s . B a s e d on t h e u n e q u i v o c a l conclusions of all four examining doctors that Miller was n o t unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of h i s actions at the time of the offense, t r i a l counsel's d e c i s i o n to w i t h d r a w t h e n o t g u i l t y by r e a s o n o f i n s a n i t y p l e a was n o t d e f i c i e n t a n d e n t i r e l y r e a s o n a b l e based on t h e i n f o r m a t i o n a n d e v i d e n c e a v a i l a b l e t o t r i a l c o u n s e l . T h e r e f o r e , t h i s c l a i m s h o u l d be d e n i e d . "This c l a i m i s a l s o d e n i e d because M i l l e r has f a i l e d t o meet h i s b u r d e n o f p r o o f demonstrating that he was prejudiced by h i s t r i a l counsel's p e r f o r m a n c e . See S t r i c k l a n d , 466 U.S. a t 6 9 5 , A l a . R. C r i m . P. 3 2 . 7 ( d ) . M i l l e r was n o t p r e j u d i c e d b y his t r i a l counsel's withdrawal of the i n s a n i t y plea b e c a u s e no e v i d e n c e h a s b e e n p r e s e n t e d during the e v i d e n t i a r y hearing that M i l l e r could not appreciate the w r o n g f u l n e s s o f h i s a c t i o n s and t h e r e f o r e would have been e l i g i b l e f o r a not g u i l t y by r e a s o n o f mental defect or i n s a n i t y plea. "Although counsel should Miller now claims that his trial have p r e s e n t e d more i n f o r m a t i o n t o 54 CR-08-1413 Dr. Scott or obtained a d d i t i o n a l expert opinion r e g a r d i n g M i l l e r ' s s a n i t y , the r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t even i f such a d d i t i o n a l measures were t a k e n , the r e s u l t w o u l d be t h e same: t h a t M i l l e r d o e s n o t m e e t the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r i n s a n i t y under Alabama law. At the evidentiary hearing, Dr. [Catherine] Boyer [ M i l l e r ' s R u l e 32 p s y c h o l o g i s t ] t e s t i f i e d t h a t i n her opinion, Miller experienced a dissociative e p i s o d e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e s h o o t i n g s and t h a t t h i s opinion would be important as a mental health p r o f e s s i o n a l i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r M i l l e r was sane or insane at the time of the s h o o t i n g s . [February 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 7 1 9 - 2 0 . ] "However, i n c r e d i b l y , Dr. B o y e r n e v e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t i n h e r o p i n i o n , M i l l e r was l e g a l l y insane at the time of the shootings. When p r e s s e d on this c r u c i a l q u e s t i o n by c o u n s e l f o r t h e S t a t e , Dr. B o y e r s t a t e d ' I r e a l l y d o n ' t know i f I c a n a n s w e r i t . ' [February 2008 R u l e 32 Hearing, R. 757.]) Most importantly, Dr. Boyer t e s t i f i e d that after her c o m p l e t e i n v e s t i g a t i o n , i f she had b e e n c a l l e d t o t e s t i f y as t o M i l l e r ' s s a n i t y a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l , s h e w o u l d h a v e h a d no o p i n i o n . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 758.] T h e r e f o r e , M i l l e r h a s f a i l e d t o present any evidence that a mental health expert would have been a v a i l a b l e to t e s t i f y at t r i a l that M i l l e r was i n s a n e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e shootings. Miller also failed to present any evidence d u r i n g the e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g t h a t c o n f l i c t s w i t h t h e e v i d e n c e and e x p e r t o p i n i o n r e g a r d i n g Miller's sanity at the time of trial. Dr. Scott never t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s o p i n i o n at the time of t r i a l t h a t M i l l e r was n o t u n a b l e t o a p p r e c i a t e t h e n a t u r e and q u a l i t y or w r o n g f u l n e s s of h i s a c t i o n s had c h a n g e d . A l t h o u g h Dr. S c o t t s t a t e d t h a t i t was 'possible' t h a t had he obtained additional information and conducted additional testing relating to a dissociated disorder his diagnosis could have c h a n g e d , he f a i l e d t o t e s t i f y t h a t s u c h i n f o r m a t i o n did i n f a c t c h a n g e h i s o p i n i o n . [ F e b r u a r y 2008 R u l e 55 CR-08-1413 32 H e a r i n g , R. 3 6 4 . ] L i k e D r . B o y e r , D r . S c o t t n e v e r testified that in his opinion, Miller met the requirements f o r i n s a n i t y under Alabama law. " E q u a l l y as i m p o r t a n t i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t M i l l e r was n o t p r e j u d i c e d b y t h e w i t h d r a w a l o f t h e i n s a n i t y p l e a was t h e t e s t i m o n y o f Dr. M c C l a r e n d u r i n g t h e [ R u l e 32] e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g . B e f o r e t r i a l i n t h e f a l l o f 1999, D r . M c C l a r e n was h i r e d t o c o n d u c t a forensic psychological evaluation of Miller. [February 2008 R u l e 32 Hearing, R. 773.] After c o n d u c t i n g h i s e v a l u a t i o n , Dr. M c C l a r e n concluded t h a t M i l l e r was a 'non p s y c h o t i c man of average intelligence.' [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 778.) Dr. M c C l a r e n also concluded that M i l l e r was not insane under Alabama law at the time of the o f f e n s e . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 780.] A f t e r becoming i n v o l v e d i n the case a g a i n f o r purposes o f t h i s R u l e 32 p r o c e e d i n g , D r . McClaren t e s t i f i e d t h a t he r e v i e w e d a d d i t i o n a l t e s t i m o n y , t h e r e p o r t s o f Dr. S c o t t and Dr. M c D e r m o t t , a d d i t i o n a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t i n g , s c h o o l r e c o r d s a s w e l l as t h e testimony d u r i n g the e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g . [February 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 7 8 3 - 8 4 . ] D r . M c C l a r e n then testified that after his review of this new i n f o r m a t i o n , n o t h i n g had changed h i s o p i n i o n t h a t M i l l e r was not l e g a l l y insane at the time of the s h o o t i n g s . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 7 9 2 ¬ 93.] "The testimony of a l l three mental health e x p e r t s d u r i n g t h e e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g as w e l l as the evidence c o n t a i n e d i n the mental h e a l t h r e p o r t s i s s u e d d u r i n g t h e t r i a l and t h e t r i a l r e c o r d i t s e l f a r e c o n s i s t e n t : a l l i n d i c a t e t h a t M i l l e r was not unable to a p p r e c i a t e the nature and quality or w r o n g f u l n e s s o f h i s a c t i o n s . No t e s t i m o n y h a s e v e n been p r e s e n t e d during t r i a l or i n t h i s Rule 32 p r o c e e d i n g t h a t M i l l e r was i n s a n e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e s h o o t i n g s under Alabama law. T h e r e f o r e , M i l l e r has f a i l e d to demonstrate a reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t 56 CR-08-1413 the outcome of h i s proceeding would have been different had t r i a l counsel not withdrawn the insanity plea because the record resoundingly e v i d e n c e s t h a t M i l l e r was i n f a c t n o t i n s a n e a t t h e time of the s h o o t i n g s . A c c o r d i n g l y , because M i l l e r has failed to demonstrate prejudice under Strickland, t h i s claim i s denied." (C. 2029-2037.) The trial of record counsel made not g u i l t y consulting supports by with the c i r c u i t a strategic reason a psychiatrist disease who purpose of determining mental or defect disease or defect evaluated Miller after f o rthe whether M i l l e r s u f f e r e d from a a t the time other mental-health Miller d i d n o t meet A l a b a m a ' s d e f i n i t i o n o f " i n s a n i t y " strategic relevant deemed So. in the the results of the shootings also of experts, shootings. choice, facts and legal t o be v i r t u a l l y on of evaluations each of counsel's principles, three concluded that App. 2002). the examination that at the type of of the our cases have Key v. S t a t e , 891 As t h e c i r c u i t noted: " ' [ T ] h e d a y a l a w y e r i s s u p p o s e d t o come i n h e r e a n d make m o t i o n s a n d e n t e r p l e a s f o r 57 and by i s precisely unchallengeable." 2 d 3 5 3 , 376 ( A l a . C r i m . Key a p t l y whom "This based that the plea after time considering conclusion d e c i s i o n to withdraw of mental express court's court CR-08-1413 w h i c h he o r s h e h a s no b a s i s a n d i n f a c t t h e i r e d u c a t i o n , t r a i n i n g , e x p e r i e n c e , and their life's experience and their discussions with their [expert] provide t h e m w i t h no b a s i s a n d y o u c a n s a y t h a t t h a t ' s i n c o m p e t e n c y [ , ] t h a t ' s g o i n g t o be a d a r k day i n our l e g a l s y s t e m . ' " 891 So. 2d a t Within 376. the ineffective argument for Miller's withdrawing mental-disease-or-defect and that his trial plea, Miller lists evaluation t o be c o m p l e t e . S p e c i f i c a l l y , Miller his counsel Dr. files Secure Medical (3) the tape should have Scott that with: (1) files; of Miller's physical (Miller's brief, Miller's sanity contends (2) D r . M c C l a r e n ' s r e p o r t history; 50; Scott's have Facility; mental-health father. provided Dr. should Hardin information the for documents from e v a l u a t i o n performed at the T a y l o r comprehensive concerning order counsel to Miller's in various furnished trial Scott were not-guilty-by-reason-of- i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t , he c l a i m s , h i s t r i a l Dr. counsel reply brief, police concerning and (5) trauma interrogation; the Miller's comprehensive inflicted family information Miller by his at 38¬ 15-23.) 58 on (4) II(B)(2)(a)(i)(A)-(E), Issue at and CR-08-1413 Miller's provided claim Dr. Scott with his the different trial counsel above-mentioned presented in petition. In h i s p e t i t i o n , M i l l e r presented within a that his claim because counsel evidence. that failed C. the i n which context court Regardless, counsel should have consideration 2000) note done done lawyer did in fact."). allegations were ineffective mental-health petition, fact more, because that i s by t h e i.e.,trial t o Dr. Scott The trial counsel regard: 59 for his we first look d i d do. (11th C i r . claim i s that h i s t r i a l circuit counsel c o u r t c o r r e c t l y began S t a t e s , 218 F . 3 d 1 3 0 5 , 1320 more, circuit mental h e a l t h at the time what M i l l e r ' s something claim assertion i s that h i s Accordingly, the c i r c u i t have 32 (C. 2 0 0 9 - 2 6 . ) information ("Although P e t i t i o n e r ' s Rule was these addressed of M i l l e r ' s more v. U n i t e d amended 32 this relief. have should this Rule c l a i m was the g i s t a n a l y s i s by e x a m i n i n g See C h a n d l e r the counsel i n assessing Miller's of the crimes. its We denying provided trial amended this should in have documents to investigate certain 295-305.) i n i t sorder trial his (Miller's I(A)(1)(d), context should counsel a t what stated the f o l l o w i n g the in CR-08-1413 " C o n t r a r y t o M i l l e r ' s c l a i m s , as t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s has p r e v i o u s l y h e l d r e g a r d i n g t h i s i s s u e on d i r e c t a p p e a l , ' [ t ] h i s i s n o t a c a s e w h e r e counsel f a i l e d to i n v e s t i g a t e a p o t e n t i a l mentalh e a l t h defense or n e g l e c t e d to i n t e r v i e w p o t e n t i a l defense w i t n e s s e s . ' M i l l e r v. S t a t e , 913 So. 2d 1 1 4 8 , 1161 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) . I n s t e a d , M i l l e r ' s m e n t a l h e a l t h was o f c h i e f c o n c e r n , i n i t i a l l y trial c o u n s e l ' s main t h e o r y of defense and ultimately became t h e c e n t r a l f o c u s o f M i l l e r ' s p e n a l t y p h a s e strategy. "The record demonstrates that trial counsel c o n d u c t e d an e x t e n s i v e a n d t h o r o u g h i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f Miller's mental health. Miller, through trial c o u n s e l , o r i g i n a l l y p l e a d e d not g u i l t y by r e a s o n o f insanity. [Direct Appeal, C. 1.] Trial counsel J o h n s o n was f a m i l i a r w i t h mental disease defenses b a s e d on h i s p r e v i o u s i n v o l v e m e n t i n c a p i t a l m u r d e r c a s e s i n w h i c h p s y c h o l o g i c a l i s s u e s had been r a i s e d . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 2 1 1 . ] Based on the i n t e r v i e w s of h i s f a m i l y , Johnson discovered M i l l e r ' s f a m i l y h i s t o r y of mental i l l n e s s . [February 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 252]. Johnson also was aware that Miller had difficulty early on remembering s p e c i f i c f a c t s r e l a t i n g to the actual s h o o t i n g s and t h a t M i l l e r had been g i v e n a m e n t a l evaluation at Taylor Hardin Medical Facility. [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 4 2 , 4 4 - 4 5 ) "As a r e s u l t , J o h n s o n m o t i o n e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t to grant additional funds to h i r e psychological expert assistance. [ D i r e c t A p p e a l , C. 5 0 - 5 5 . ) The t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e m o t i o n and J o h n s o n retained Dr. Charles Scott to conduct psychiatric and psychological e v a l u a t i o n s of M i l l e r i n order to determine whether an insanity defense would be j u s t i f i e d . ( F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 48) I n preparation f o r Dr. Scott's evaluation, Johnson forwarded over n i n e t y t h r e e pages of m a t e r i a l s to Dr. S c o t t i n c l u d i n g numerous w i t n e s s statements, statements from M i l l e r ' s co-workers, p o l i c e i n c i d e n t 60 CR-08-1413 r e p o r t s , and a c o p y o f Dr. James H o o p e r ' s e v a l u a t i o n o f M i l l e r a t T a y l o r H a r d i n . [ D i r e c t A p p e a l , R. 1345; F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 63, 318.] " I n r e s p o n s e t o Dr. S c o t t ' s r e q u e s t t o i n t e r v i e w M i l l e r ' s f a m i l y m e m b e r s who w e r e l i v i n g w i t h h i m a t t h e t i m e of t h e s h o o t i n g s , J o h n s o n a r r a n g e d f o r Dr. S c o t t t o i n t e r v i e w M i l l e r ' s m o t h e r B a r b a r a , and h i s b r o t h e r R i c h a r d , and h i s s i s t e r , C h e r y l . [February 2008 R u l e 32 Hearing, R. 314-15.] Johnson also attempted to obtain the records of Miller's grandfather Hubert M i l l e r , but was unsuccessful. [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 2 5 2 . ] Dr. Scott n e v e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was not p r o v i d e d w i t h any d o c u m e n t t h a t he s p e c i f i c a l l y r e q u e s t e d from t r i a l counsel; Johnson confirmed t h i s f a c t s t a t i n g that "I d o n ' t t h i n k t h a t Dr. S c o t t a s k e d f o r a n y t h i n g that he was n o t s u p p l i e d . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 Hearing, R. 76.] "After compiling this information, [Scott] i n t e r v i e w e d and e v a l u a t e d M i l l e r o v e r a t h r e e day p e r i o d . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 314.] Dr. S c o t t a l s o e n l i s t e d the s e r v i c e s of a p s y c h o l o g i s t , D r . B a r b a r a M c D e r m o t t , who c o n d u c t e d a p s y c h o l o g i c a l e v a l u a t i o n o f M i l l e r . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 R. 315¬ 16.] A f t e r t h e e v a l u a t i o n was c o m p l e t e d , D r . Scott diagnosed M i l l e r with having a d e l u s i o n a l disorder and a p s y c h i a t r i c p e r s o n a l i t y d i s o r d e r ; h o w e v e r , Dr. Scott concluded that Miller was not unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions and therefore d i d not qualify under Alabama's legal definition for insanity. [February 2008 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 3 2 5 - 2 6 , 3 3 5 . ] " (C. 2009-13.) With specific the above information i n mind, that we now Miller 61 direct claims our his focus trial to the counsel CR-08-1413 should have provided to Dr. sanity Scott e v a l u a t i o n of M i l l e r t o be in order for Dr. Scott's complete. (i) M i l l e r was Hardin Secure purpose his of e v a l u a t e d by Medical assessing Dr. Facility Miller's mental s t a t e at the time on at of the c r i m e s . A l t h o u g h Dr. that report Hooper's suffering Dr. entire his t r i a l Hooper's to entire was case file contained to to Miller s u f f e r e d f r o m memory l o s s II(B)(2)(a)(i)(A), The circuit that his t r i a l documents that without evaluation at court Dr. Dr. file Scott's to was 1999, Taylor the trial stand for and Hooper concluded or defect counsel provided Dr. counsel d i d not provide Scott. Miller contends ineffective Hardin M i l l e r maintains trial trial file counsel 4, from a mental disease Scott, case October of the murders. was Hooper's Hooper at the competence that M i l l e r the time not J a m e s F. f o r not Scott and because notes at the providing the indicating time of the Dr. Taylor that offenses. t h a t a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n , Dr. incomplete. (Miller's brief, 39-41.) found that M i l l e r counsel rendered 62 failed to establish i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e f o r not CR-08-1413 providing The Miller's circuit court entire Taylor Hardin file to Dr. Scott. stated: "Although not a l l e g e d i n the p e t i t i o n , during the e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g M i l l e r q u e s t i o n e d D r . S c o t t on w h e t h e r J o h n s o n a l s o p r o v i d e d Dr. H o o p e r ' s b a c k u p o r underlying f i l e as p a r t o f t h e d o c u m e n t s J o h n s o n provided to Dr. Scott. [February 2008 Rule 32 H e a r i n g , R. 3 2 0 - 2 1 . ] H o w e v e r , M i l l e r h a s f a i l e d t o p r o d u c e any e v i d e n c e t h a t J o h n s o n had a c c e s s t o o r c o u l d have o b t a i n e d Dr. H o o p e r ' s u n d e r l y i n g file. M o r e o v e r , M i l l e r has f a i l e d t o p r o d u c e any e v i d e n c e that a reasonable attorney would have provided another expert's underlying file to an expert r e t a i n e d t o c o n d u c t p s y c h i a t r i c e v a l u a t i o n s on a defendant." (C. 2015.) The c i r c u i t court's f i n d i n g s are supported by the record. (ii) Miller was psychologist that Miller also r e t a i n e d by did not the time "insanity" at his counsel trial sending Dr. evaluated a copy of McClaren's II(B)(2)(a)(i)(B), the file at Harry A. o f A l a b a m a , who Alabama's the shootings. ineffective Dr. 41-45.) 63 Scott. a concluded definition Miller argues assistance McClaren's w r i t t e n report to McClaren, meet rendered Dr. Dr. State did of by and (Miller's of that by not a copy of brief, CR-08-1413 In support McClaren's that and that of t h i s report Miller during assertion, contained suffered Miller 32 asserts periods Exhibit that 27-0030 trial to that Dr. indicating shortly before hypothesized of d i s s o c i a t i o n at the b r i e f a t 42, c i t i n g -0031.) Miller additionally and Dr. McDermott o f Dr. McClaren's hypotheses, nor d i d t r i a l counsel Dr. S c o t t to determine i f M i l l e r related furnished any t e s t s s u f f e r e d from a d i s s o c i a t i v e or trauma- f u r t h e r argues Dr. S c o t t w i t h contained: notes with confused interview that of his trial counsel Dr. M c C l a r e n ' s f i l e (1) D r . M c C l a r e n ' s memory employee and Dr. McDermott a d m i n i s t e r disorder. Miller any d i d not apprise Miller's Dr. S c o t t request that counsel information Dr. M c C l a r e n a period (Miller's contends of amnesia and t h a t may h a v e s u f f e r e d time of the shootings. Rule critical from the shootings Miller the shootings; annotation should have because the f i l e that Miller (2) D r . M c C l a r e n ' s denied interview t h e a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r who c o n f i r m e d t h a t M i l l e r at the notes who time with saw of a Miller the Shelby a day arrest; Chilton after (3) Mental Dr. was McClaren's Health the shooting Center and who i n d i c a t e d t h a t M i l l e r may h a v e b e e n i n s h o c k when t h e e m p l o y e e 64 CR-08-1413 saw him; and McClaren that suffering a shootings. Exhibit (4) the results supported period (Miller's of of v a r i o u s the t e s t s p e r f o r m e d by hypothesis dissociation 44, at brief, at citing on c l a i m , the that the Miller time Miller's of Rule Dr. was the 32 27.) In denying r e l i e f this circuit court wrote: "Miller has failed to demonstrate prejudice under S t r i c k l a n d because the r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t the additional information he claims his trial c o u n s e l s h o u l d have p r o v i d e d t o Dr. S c o t t d i d not c o n t a i n any a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t Dr. Scott was n o t a l r e a d y made a w a r e o f d u r i n g h i s e v a l u a t i o n . For i n s t a n c e , M i l l e r c l a i m s t h a t h i s t r i a l counsel was i n e f f e c t i v e f o r f a i l i n g t o p r o v i d e Dr. S c o t t a c o p y of Dr. M c C l a r e n ' s r e p o r t o f h i s e v a l u a t i o n o f Miller. [ A m e n d e d R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n , C. 2 9 7 . ] During t h e e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g , M i l l e r a t t e m p t e d t o show [that] Dr. McClaren's report would have been significant to Dr. Scott because Dr. McClaren documented t h a t M i l l e r claimed amnesia d u r i n g the s h o o t i n g s , t h a t Dr. M c C l a r e n o p i n e d t h a t a p e r i o d o f dissociation was possible after Miller reported e x p e r i e n c i n g ' t u n n e l v i s i o n , ' and b e c a u s e t h e r e p o r t n o t e d t h a t M i l l e r was c o n f u s e d as t o why he was arrested. "However, Dr. Scott was already aware that M i l l e r c l a i m e d to have d i f f i c u l t y remembering the e v e n t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e s h o o t i n g s . Dr. S c o t t t e s t i f i e d d u r i n g the p e n a l t y phase of the t r i a l t h a t M i l l e r 'had d i f f i c u l t y r e c a l l i n g w h a t h a p p e n e d and questioned the e v e n t s had even o c c u r r e d . ' [Direct A p p e a l , R. 1378.] Dr. Scott also noted Miller's d i f f i c u l t y remembering the s h o o t i n g s in his report a n d r e p o r t e d t h a t M i l l e r ' w o n d e r e d i f i t was a bad dream.' [ M i l l e r ' s R u l e 32 E x h i b i t 29-0010.] Dr. 65 CR-08-1413 Scott also was p r o v i d e d with the psychological r e p o r t o f D r . H o o p e r , w h i c h s t a t e d t h a t M i l l e r 'has no memory o f t h e i n d e x e v e n t s . ' [ M i l l e r ' s R u l e 32 E x h i b i t 29-0208.] "Although Miller contends that i t was s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t Dr. M c C l a r e n l i s t e d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of a brief period of d i s s o c i a t i o n because of Miller's self-report of experiencing 'tunnel v i s i o n , ' u l t i m a t e l y , Dr. M c C l a r e n d i d not d i a g n o s e Miller with any type of d i s s o c i a t i v e disorder. [ M i l l e r ' s R u l e 32 E x h i b i t , 2 7 - 0 0 3 9 . ] M o r e o v e r , D r . Scott was also aware that Miller claimed to experience 'tunnel v i s i o n ' and i n c l u d e d t h i s f a c t i n h i s own r e p o r t . [ M i l l e r ' s R u l e 32 E x h i b i t , 2 9 - 0 0 1 0 . ] Thus, Dr. S c o t t had access to the very same i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t l e d Dr. M c C l a r e n t o suggest t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of a period of d i s s o c i a t i o n . " F i n a l l y , D r . S c o t t was a l s o a w a r e t h a t M i l l e r had a c o n f u s e d s t a t e o f m i n d a t t h e t i m e he was a r r e s t e d by l a w e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c i a l s . As Dr. S c o t t stated i n h i s report, "'[Miller] said that the f i r s t t i m e he r e a l i z e d t h a t p o l i c e were f o l l o w i n g him o c c u r r e d when he h e a r d t h e s i r e n s a n d he felt t h a t h i s " t h o u g h t s were spinning." When a s k e d t o d e s c r i b e t h i s he s a i d t h a t he had b r i e f thoughts of the shootings and t h o u g h t t h a t " t h i s d i d n ' t make s e n s e . I couldn't explain i t . " ' " [ M i l l e r ' s R u l e 32 E x h i b i t , 2 9 - 0 0 1 0 . ] D r . S c o t t a l s o r e p o r t e d t h a t a t t h e t i m e he was a r r e s t e d , M i l l e r r e c a l l e d being 'somewhat c o n f u s e d a n d t h o u g h t t h a t he m i g h t go home a n d w o n d e r e d "why was I going home"' a n d t h a t a f t e r b e i n g t a k e n t o j a i l 'when he f i r s t woke u p , he t h o u g h t he m i g h t b e a t home b u t when he r e c o g n i z e d t h a t he was i n j a i l he r e a l i z e d t h a t t h e " [ f l a s h e s ] i n my m i n d m i g h t b e real."' [ M i l l e r ' s R u l e 32 E x h i b i t , 2 9 - 0 0 1 0 - 1 1 . ] B e c a u s e t h e 66 CR-08-1413 record indicates Dr. Scott had knowledge of s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n D r . M c C l a r e n ' s r e p o r t , M i l l e r has f a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e how the f a i l u r e to p r o v i d e Dr. M c C l a r e n ' s report i m p a c t e d Dr. S c o t t ' s e v a l u a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , Miller cannot demonstrate a reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t the r e s u l t of h i s p r o c e e d i n g would have been d i f f e r e n t . " (C. 2016-19.) The circuit court's f i n d i n g s are supported by the record. (iii) After police. an Miller The audiotape Johnson, stating Miller arrested, i n t e r r o g a t i o n was or was videotape. quoted that "he in ha[d] or (Miller's brief Miller total at he was Miller's press studied 'and asserts that the pictures there citing recorded [was] one Miller's his the on either Mickey day trial as videotapes and of of this Rule 32 look of the or trial by counsel, trial on indifference, 45, interrogated apparently 4 the made a t h i s a r r e s t disconnect 0070.) was total other.'" Exhibit counsel 35¬ rendered M i l l e r ' s R u l e 32 c o u n s e l r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e S t a t e p r o d u c e t h e r e c o r d i n g o f t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n . The S t a t e c o n t a c t e d the Pelham P o l i c e Department, the agency that retained the e v i d e n c e i n t h i s c a s e , and r e q u e s t e d a c o p y of t h e t a p e . The S t a t e t o l d t h e c o u r t h e a r i n g t h e R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n t h a t t h e r e was no r e c o r d t h a t t h e r e f e r e n c e d t a p e e v e r e x i s t e d . The S t a t e i n f o r m e d the c o u r t t h a t i t had p r o v i d e d a l l e x i s t i n g tapes w i t h i n the d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y ' s f i l e s to M i l l e r , and M i l l e r d o e s n o t d i s p u t e t h a t . ( F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 h e a r i n g , R. 5 2 9 - 3 0 . ) 4 67 CR-08-1413 ineffective Scott assistance with a copy because Scott's Miller d i d not provide of the i n t e r r o g a t i o n tape presumably r e f e r e n c i n g i n Dr. Johnson request h i s comments that counsel that him made n e a r t h e t i m e o f t h e s h o o t i n g s . II(B)(2)(a)(i)(C), recording "Miller could was at have actually committed wrongful he was b e i n g actions." Exhibit, 45-46.) Miller helped fleeing acts Dr. any he determine appreciated o r i f he was g e n u i n e l y brief, despite statements (Miller's a p p r e h e n d e d o r c h a r g e d as a r e s u l t (Miller's was brief, contends that the tape Scott because Johnson to the press, send Dr. a t 45, q u o t i n g whether he surprised had that of h i s a l l e g e d Miller's Rule 32 29-0023.) The c i r c u i t court denied Miller relief on t h i s a s s e r t i o n , stating: " A l t h o u g h n o t a l l e g e d i n h i s amended p e t i t i o n , M i l l e r attempted to suggest during the e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g t h a t t r i a l c o u n s e l was i n e f f e c t i v e f o r n o t submitting t o Dr. Scott an audio/videotape of Miller's statement to the p o l i c e . [February 2008 Rule 32 hearing, R. 78-80.] However, the audio/videotape of Miller's statement was not submitted into evidence during the e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 h e a r i n g , R. 5 2 9 - 3 0 . ] Miller also f a i l e d to present any p r o o f o f what actual evidence was contained on the audio/videotape. Therefore, because there i s nothing i n t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t i n g w h a t was c o n t a i n e d i n t h i s evidence, Miller cannot e s t a b l i s h how he was 68 CR-08-1413 p r e j u d i c e d by h i s t r i a l c o u n s e l a u d i o / v i d e o t a p e t o Dr. S c o t t . " (C. there contends that was n o t h i n g the c i r c u i t i n the record court's conclusion i n d i c a t i n g w h a t was the i n t e r r o g a t i o n tape i s c l e a r l y this in the 2022-23.) Miller on not p r o v i d i n g erroneous. that contained Miller bases a s s e r t i o n on t h e f a c t D r . M c C l a r e n n o t e d i n h i s f i l e a taped charged interview with something? you're saying' contact." with while (Miller's police, ... Miller I don't said, reply brief, 'I'm understand l o o k i n g down a t t h e f l o o r that being anything w i t h o u t any eye a t 1 6 n . 2, c i t i n g Miller's R u l e 32 E x h i b i t 2 7 - 0 0 2 7 . ) Even assuming t h a t Dr. M c C l a r e n i s referencing that Johnson t h e same t a p e trial counsel to i n h i s statement t o the press, Miller relief reasons on this II.C.1.(a)(ii), claim f o r the would s t i l l discussed alluded b e d u e no in Part supra. (iv) Miller adequately mental have maintains "investigate illness played a that the his trial counsel multi-generational i n the M i l l e r family, which, crucial i n Dr. Scott's role 69 failed to history of i f known, evaluation would [of CR-08-1413 Miller's Issue s a n i t y at the time II(B)(2)(a)(i)(D), The c i r c u i t on this of the c r i m e s . ] " (Miller's brief, i n denying relief a t 46-48.) court stated the f o l l o w i n g claim: "Trial counsel's investigation into Miller's m e n t a l h e a l t h was r e a s o n a b l e a n d M i l l e r h a s f a i l e d to meet h i s burden of establishing deficient performance. Contrary to M i l l e r ' s claims, trial counsel attempted to obtain the mental health records of [ M i l l e r ' s ] g r a n d f a t h e r , Hubert Miller, but was unsuccessful. [February 2008 Rule 32 Hearing, R. 252.] M i l l e r has not p r e s e n t e d any evidence that trial counsel's attempts were unreasonable. Even i f trial counsel had not attempted to o b t a i n M i l l e r ' s f a m i l y mental h e a l t h records, Miller cannot demonstrate that trial c o u n s e l ' s p e r f o r m a n c e i n t h i s r e g a r d was d e f i c i e n t . M i l l e r f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t any e v i d e n c e t h a t Dr. S c o t t specifically requested such records and Miller failed to prove that a reasonable, competent attorney would have independently obtained and presented the mental h e a l t h records of a defendant's extended family. Notably, the evidence i n d i c a t e s a r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y would n o t have i n v e s t i g a t e d and presented such records. Miller's trial counsel, M i c k e y J o h n s o n and R o n n i e B l a c k w o o d , as w e l l as h i s a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l , B i l l y H i l l and H a r a n Lowe, a l l testified i n their numerous years of criminal experience, none h a d e v e r introduced the mental h e a l t h records or medical records of a defendant's f a m i l y . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 2 5 3 , 8 7 2 ; A u g u s t 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 6 8 - 6 9 , 1 0 3 . ] "This Court also denies this c l a i m because M i l l e r h a s f a i l e d t o meet h i s b u r d e n o f p r o o f o f e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t he was p r e j u d i c e d b y h i s t r i a l 70 CR-08-1413 counsel's a l l e g e d f a i l u r e to adequately i n v e s t i g a t e m e n t a l h e a l t h e v i d e n c e . S e e , S t r i c k l a n d , 466 U.S. at 687; A l a . R. C r i m . P., 3 2 . 7 ( d ) . E v e n i f M i l l e r c o u l d have proven t h a t h i s t r i a l counsel's performance were d e f i c i e n t i n f a i l i n g to p r o v i d e c e r t a i n r e c o r d s t o Dr. S c o t t , M i l l e r f a i l e d t o e l i c i t any testimony f r o m Dr. S c o t t t h a t h i s r e p o r t was incomplete or i n a c c u r a t e due to a l a c k of n e c e s s a r y records or information. While Dr. Scott testified that a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n ' c o u l d ' have been important in his evaluation, he failed to state how his e v a l u a t i o n was inadequate, s p e c i f i c a l l y i n regards to documenting Miller's mental health problems. [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 h e a r i n g , R. 3 6 2 - 6 5 . ] " F u r t h e r m o r e , M i l l e r has f a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e prejudice under S t r i c k l a n d because the record i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n he claims h i s t r i a l c o u n s e l s h o u l d have p r o v i d e d t o Dr. Scott d i d n o t c o n t a i n any a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t Dr. S c o t t was not already made a w a r e o f d u r i n g his evaluation "Dr. Scott ... had a knowledge of Miller's f a m i l y h i s t o r y of m e n t a l i l l n e s s . I n h i s r e p o r t , Dr. Scott devoted a section to Miller's 'Family P s y c h i a t r i c H i s t o r y ' and d i s c u s s e d t h a t I v a n M i l l e r [Miller's father] exhibited unusual behavior, that Miller's grandfather, Hubert Miller, had been c o m m i t t e d t o a p s y c h i a t r i c i n s t i t u t i o n , and t h a t h i s b r o t h e r R i c h a r d was d e s c r i b e d as ' s l o w . ' [Miller's R u l e 32 E x h i b i t , 2 9 - 0 0 0 6 ] . T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n was t h e n presented t o t h e j u r y d u r i n g Dr. Scott's penalty phase testimony. [ D i r e c t A p p e a l , R. 1 3 6 2 - 6 3 . ] D u r i n g t h e e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g , Dr. S c o t t t e s t i f i e d t h a t a f a m i l y h i s t o r y of p s y c h o t i c d i s o r d e r s c o u l d impact t h e v u l n e r a b i l i t y a n d l i k e l i h o o d t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l w o u l d h a v e a m e n t a l d i s o r d e r . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 Hearing, R. 307.] Therefore, b e c a u s e he was aware that Miller's f a m i l y had a h i s t o r y of p s y c h i a t r i c 71 CR-08-1413 problems, Dr. Scott had readily information suggesting Miller would v u l n e r a b l e to having a mental d i s o r d e r . available be more "Although M i l l e r now claims that his trial c o u n s e l s h o u l d have a l s o p r o v i d e d the m e n t a l h e a l t h records of h i s great-grandmother V i c t o r i a Granade, h i s f a t h e r , I v a n M i l l e r , and h i s u n c l e James M i l l e r , M i l l e r has f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t any e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l s w e r e d i a g n o s e d o r how such undiagnosed mental illnesses could have impacted Miller's diagnosis. Similarly, although Miller claims the records of h i s g r a n d f a t h e r Hubert M i l l e r , which r e p o r t a d i a g n o s i s of p a r a n o i d schizophrenia, and the records of h i s uncle P e r r y M i l l e r , which r e p o r t a d i a g n o s i s of b i p o l a r d i s o r d e r , s h o u l d have been provided t o Dr. S c o t t , he f a i l e d t o specifically present evidence regarding how these precise diagnoses specifically impacted Dr. Boyer's [ M i l l e r ' s R u l e 32 p s y c h o l o g i s t ] d i a g n o s i s o f p o s t traumatic stress disorder. [February 2008 R u l e 32 h e a r i n g , R. 6 4 4 - 4 8 ] N o r d i d M i l l e r d e m o n s t r a t e how the absence of these s p e c i f i c records specifically distorted or affected Dr. Scott's evaluation. Therefore, because trial counsel did provide i n f o r m a t i o n t o Dr. S c o t t t o i n f o r m him of Miller's f a m i l y h i s t o r y o f m e n t a l i l l n e s s and b e c a u s e M i l l e r has failed to establish specific psychiatric diagnoses i n h i s f a m i l y ' s mental records that would h a v e c h a n g e d Dr. Scott's evaluation, Miller has f a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t he was p r e j u d i c e d b y t h e f a i l u r e to provide f a m i l y mental h e a l t h records to Dr. S c o t t . " (C. 2014-21.) The In his court's c i r c u i t court's brief, Miller finding that f i n d i n g s are suggests that, there no was 72 s u p p o r t e d by the record. contrary the circuit evidence to regarding how the CR-08-1413 absence Scott of did records the that testify (Miller's portion Dr. health records impacted that the would have p l a y e d sanity. of the Scott plays assessing the was missing at 46-47.) record testifying i n regard Miller's Scott's to b u i l d i n g s a n i t y at the family in assessing However, referenced about conclusion, Miller a "huge" r o l e brief, of Dr. the by an health Miller's examination Miller role indicates familial mental a m i t i g a t i o n case, time of the Dr. not in crimes. (v) Miller because maintains they information father." Miller because did provide Dr. the trauma concerning contends, Dr. Scott information." In not (Miller's Dr. that his t r i a l denying brief, (Miller's relief Scott [he] were with provided brief, on this at with from this incomplete "crucial 50.) claim, the circuit stated: " M i l l e r was a l s o not p r e j u d i c e d by h i s trial counsel's p r o v i s i o n of information to Dr. Scott r e g a r d i n g t h e e x t e n t and n a t u r e of p h y s i c a l abuse that M i l l e r s u f f e r e d as a child. Dr. Scott was informed and had knowledge that Ivan Miller p h y s i c a l l y abused M i l l e r . Dr. Scott noted i n his 73 his a t 49-50.) Thus, s a n i t y e v a l u a t i o n was not ineffective "comprehensive suffered II(B)(2)(a)(i)(E), Scott's was counsel court CR-08-1413 r e p o r t t h a t I v a n M i l l e r was ' p h y s i c a l l y abusive and f r e q u e n t l y h i t [ M i l l e r ] on v a r i o u s a r e a s o f h i s b o d y w i t h h i s hands or w i t h a b e l t . ' [ M i l l e r ' s Rule 32 Exhibit 29-0003]. Dr. Scott also testified concerning Ivan's p h y s i c a l abuse of M i l l e r during the p e n a l t y phase of M i l l e r ' s t r i a l . [ D i r e c t A p p e a l , R. 1 3 5 0 - 5 1 . ) " M i l l e r now claims that his t r i a l counsel was ineffective for not providing Dr. Scott more i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e d e t a i l s o f t h e a b u s e . H o w e v e r , D r . S c o t t was a w a r e o f s p e c i f i c i n c i d e n t s o f a b u s e and testified during the penalty phase about an occasion when I v a n t r i e d t o s t a b M i l l e r . [Direct A p p e a l , R. 1 3 5 1 . ] N o t a b l y , M i l l e r f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t any f u r t h e r e v i d e n c e d u r i n g the e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g of specific details or occurrences of physical a b u s e . I n f a c t , none o f M i l l e r ' s r e p o r t e d i n j u r e s were l i n k e d t o any f o r m o f a b u s e ; M i l l e r ' s expert D r . B o y e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e r e was no i n d i c a t i o n i n M i l l e r ' s medical records how any of h i s injuries o c c u r r e d a n d t h a t t h e r e w e r e no s e r i o u s w o u n d s t h a t required overnight hospital stays. [February 2008 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 740.] The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t D r . S c o t t was a w a r e o f t h e n a t u r e o f I v a n ' s p h y s i c a l a b u s e ; M i l l e r has f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e any e v i d e n c e o f other specific incidents of abuse or how such undocumented incidents would have impacted Dr. S c o t t ' s a n a l y s i s . A c c o r d i n g l y , M i l l e r has f a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t he was prejudiced." (C. 2021-22.) The circuit Miller trial in argues counsel's Part court's that failure f i n d i n g s are he s u p p o r t e d by was "severely to provide the II.C.1.(a)(i)-(v), supra, 74 to the record. prejudiced" by his information addressed Dr. (Miller's Scott. CR-08-1413 brief, I I ( B ) ( 2 ) ( a ) ( 1 ) ( F ) , at 17-25.) Miller psychologist all the retained materials have p r o v i d e d on Miller, traumatic Boyer to she testified ability his Miller to that Dr. information Scott she and a mental disease the trial defect court Miller shootings and should additional tests Part had from post- that Hearing, impaired R. the the time of Scott with supra, s u f f e r i n g from shootings. stated: " M i l l e r has f a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e a reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t the outcome of h i s p r o c e e d i n g w o u l d have been different had his trial counsel i n v e s t i g a t e d m o r e m e n t a l h e a l t h e v i d e n c e b e c a u s e he h a s f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h a t he met t h e l e g a l d e f i n i t i o n o f i n s a n i t y u n d e r A l a . Code [1975] § [ 1 3 A - 3 - 1 ] . None o f t h e f i v e p s y c h o l o g i c a l and p s y c h i a t r i c e x p e r t s who e v a l u a t e d M i l l e r d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f h i s t r i a l o r h i s R u l e 32 p r o c e e d i n g s , i n c l u d i n g Drs. Hooper, S c o t t , McDermott, M c C l a r e n , and B o y e r c o n c l u d e d t h a t 75 his 714-718.) I I . C . 1 . (a) ( i ) - ( v ) , was a wrongfulness f u r n i s h e d Dr. that M i l l e r Dr. experienced q u a l i t y or 32 counsel at reviewed counsel suffered Miller Rule in a dissociative features. the 2008 trial administered nature discussed or his believed during at proceedings, contends have d e t e r m i n e d circuit 32 with (February Dr. Rule brief Boyer, Catherine disorder that reply Dr. that a s s e r t s t h a t had may he Miller's when the Scott appreciate the The for episode" acts. that concluded stress "dissociative of states 50-55; CR-08-1413 M i l l e r was l e g a l l y i n s a n e . T h e r e f o r e , e v e n i f t r i a l c o u n s e l had c o n d u c t e d a more t h o r o u g h m e n t a l h e a l t h i n v e s t i g a t i o n , t h e r e s u l t w o u l d b e t h e same: M i l l e r c o u l d n o t h a v e p r o v e n t h a t he d i d n o t a p p r e c i a t e t h e w r o n g f u l n e s s of h i s a c t i o n s and t h u s c o u l d not have sustained a n o t - g u i l t y by reason of insanity defense. " M i l l e r ' s f a i l u r e to demonstrate prejudice i s h i g h l i g h t e d b y t h e t e s t i m o n y o f M i l l e r ' s own expert, Dr. B o y e r , d u r i n g t h e e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g . Despite her o p i n i o n t h a t M i l l e r s u f f e r e d from p o s t - t r a u m a t i c s t r e s s d i s o r d e r , i n c r e d i b l y , Dr. B o y e r f a i l e d to t e s t i f y t h a t M i l l e r was l e g a l l y insane. [February 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 7 5 7 - 5 8 . ] N o t a b l y , D r . B o y e r f a i l e d t o e v e n p r o v i d e an o p i n i o n . C l e a r l y e v a d i n g the i s s u e of M i l l e r ' s s a n i t y , i n response to a q u e s t i o n r e g a r d i n g w h e t h e r she d i s a g r e e d w i t h Dr. S c o t t ' s t e s t i m o n y d u r i n g t r i a l t h a t M i l l e r was not i n s a n e , D r . B o y e r t e s t i f i e d ' I r e a l l y d o n ' t know i f I c a n a n s w e r i t . ' [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 757.] "As D r . B o y e r s t a t e d i n r e s p o n s e t o a q u e s t i o n f r o m c o u n s e l f o r t h e S t a t e , i f she had b e e n c a l l e d to t e s t i f y on M i l l e r ' s b e h a l f during trial, she w o u l d h a v e h a d no o p i n i o n a s t o w h e t h e r he could a p p r e c i a t e the wrongfulness of h i s conduct at the time of the shootings: "'Q: So i n t h i s c a s e i t ' s f a i r t o s a y t h a t had you b e e n t h e r e you w o u l d have s a i d I h a v e no o p i n i o n [ a s t o M i l l e r ' s s a n i t y ] one way o r t h e other? "'A: Yes.' "[February 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 758.] Without offering an opinion, l e t a l o n e an opinion that c o n f l i c t e d w i t h the evaluations performed during trial, e v e n i f a m e n t a l h e a l t h i n v e s t i g a t i o n was p e r f o r m e d i n t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h M i l l e r now alleges 76 CR-08-1413 i t s h o u l d have been c o n d u c t e d , M i l l e r has f a i l e d t o demonstrate a reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y that a d d i t i o n a l m e n t a l h e a l t h e v i d e n c e would have been u n c o v e r e d t h a t w o u l d have a f f e c t e d the outcome of h i s t r i a l . It i s a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t Dr. Scott f a i l e d to state during the evidentiary hearing that his o p i n i o n t h a t M i l l e r was not insane at the time of the shootings had c h a n g e d . No e v i d e n c e has been presented t h a t M i l l e r was l e g a l l y i n s a n e a n d a m p l e m e n t a l h e a l t h e v i d e n c e was already available for trial counsel to effectively argue during the p e n a l t y phase t h a t M i l l e r s a t i s f i e d the requirements for the s t a t u t o r y m i t i g a t i n g circumstances under Ala. Code [1975] § 1 3 A - 5 - 5 1 ( 2 ) and ( 6 ) . "Three psychologists and one psychiatrist e v a l u a t e d M i l l e r a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l ; none o f t h e s e four doctors, whether h i r e d by the defense or a p p o i n t e d by the t r i a l c o u r t , f o u n d t h a t M i l l e r was insane. [February 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 248.] Miller has offered nothing i n the testimony of either Dr. Boyer or Dr. Scott to call these e v a l u a t i o n s i n t o q u e s t i o n . T h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e t h a t Dr. B o y e r ' s t e s t i m o n y w o u l d have b e n e f i t e d M i l l e r ' s d e f e n s e , nor w o u l d i t have i m p a c t e d the outcome of the proceedings. Miller has failed t o meet his burden of proof of demonstrating how he was p r e j u d i c e d u n d e r S t r i c k l a n d by h i s t r i a l counsel's investigation i n t o h i s mental health. Therefore, M i l l e r cannot demonstrate that h i s t r i a l counsel's performance in this regard was constitutionally ineffective " (C. 2023-26.) The As circuit noted above, only had to court's to show f i n d i n g s are have been that his s u p p o r t e d by entitled trial to counsel relief, the record. Miller rendered d e f i c i e n t p e r f o r m a n c e by not p r o v i d i n g the a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n t o 77 not Dr. CR-08-1413 Scott the for his consideration time of the offenses, prejudiced provide the as a result information i n assessing but also of Dr. had t o prove his trial Scott. Miller's that counsel's The fact sanity that at he was failure to Dr. Scott might have changed h i s c o n c l u s i o n regarding M i l l e r ' s sanity at the time received not sufficient of the offenses h a d he the information to e s t a b l i s h the r e q u i s i t e prejudice. "With respect t o p r e j u d i c e , a c h a l l e n g e r must d e m o n s t r a t e 'a r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t , b u t f o r counsel's unprofessional e r r o r s , the r e s u l t of the proceeding w o u l d have been d i f f e r e n t . A reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y i s a p r o b a b i l i t y s u f f i c i e n t t o undermine c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e o u t c o m e . ' [ S t r i c k l a n d , 466 U.S. a t 6 9 4 . ] , 104 S . C t . 2 0 5 2 . I t i s n o t e n o u g h ' t o s h o w t h a t t h e e r r o r s h a d some c o n c e i v a b l e e f f e c t o n t h e outcome o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g . ' I d . , a t 6 9 3 , 104 S . C t . 2052. C o u n s e l ' s e r r o r s must be 'so s e r i o u s as t o d e p r i v e t h e d e f e n d a n t o f a f a i r t r i a l , a t r i a l whose r e s u l t i s r e l i a b l e . ' I d . , a t 6 8 7 , 104 S . C t . 2 0 5 2 . " ' S u r m o u n t i n g S t r i c k l a n d ' s h i g h b a r i s n e v e r an e a s y t a s k . ' P a d i l l a v. K e n t u c k y , 5 5 9 U.S. , , 130 S . C t . 1 4 7 3 , 1 4 8 5 , 176 L . E d . 2 d 284 (2010). An i n e f f e c t i v e - a s s i s t a n c e c l a i m c a n f u n c t i o n as a way t o e s c a p e r u l e s o f w a i v e r a n d f o r f e i t u r e a n d r a i s e issues not presented at t r i a l , and so t h e S t r i c k l a n d s t a n d a r d must be a p p l i e d w i t h scrupulous care, l e s t ' i n t r u s i v e p o s t - t r i a l i n q u i r y ' threaten the i n t e g r i t y of the very adversary process the r i g h t t o c o u n s e l i s m e a n t t o s e r v e . S t r i c k l a n d , 466 U.S., a t 6 8 9 - 6 9 0 , 104 S . C t . 2 0 5 2 . E v e n u n d e r d e n o v o review, the standard for judging counsel's r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s a most d e f e r e n t i a l one. U n l i k e a later reviewing court, the attorney observed the relevant proceedings, knew o f m a t e r i a l s o u t s i d e t h e 78 i s CR-08-1413 record, and interacted with the client, with o p p o s i n g c o u n s e l , and w i t h t h e j u d g e . I t i s ' a l l t o o tempting' to 'second-guess counsel's assistance a f t e r c o n v i c t i o n or adverse sentence.' I d . , at 689, 104 S . C t . 2 0 5 2 ; s e e a l s o B e l l v . C o n e , 535 U.S. 685, 702, 122 S.Ct. 1843, 152 L.Ed. 2d 914 (2002); L o c k h a r t v . F r e t w e l l , 506 U.S. 364, 372, 113 S.Ct. 8 3 8 , 122 L . E d . 2 d 180 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . The q u e s t i o n i s w h e t h e r an attorney's representation amounted to incompetence under ' p r e v a i l i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l norms,' not whether i t d e v i a t e d from b e s t p r a c t i c e s or most common c u s t o m . S t r i c k l a n d , 466 U.S., a t 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052." Harrington 88 v. R i c h t e r , U.S. 131 S. Ct. 770, 787¬ (2011). Miller contends that withdrew the p l e a of not defect, his t r i a l of , Miller's trial. (Miller's asserts that although suffering shootings, suffering guilty counsel mental even brief, Dr. be should illness though during from when h i s t r i a l or nevertheless a mental illness. regarding Miller's r e c e i v e d Dr. the guilt at defect at found Thus, phase the of the Miller was time that or evidence 55-60.) Miller not of the Miller was asserts that Scott's equivocal mental health, h i s t r i a l 79 counsel concluded that M i l l e r Scott counsel have p r e s e n t e d II(B)(2)(a)(ii), Scott trial reason of mental disease still from a mental disease Dr. his counsel findings could have CR-08-1413 pursued several options, had M i l l e r evaluated whom t r i a l in Part health counsel (1) t r i a l counsel by a n o t h e r m e n t a l - h e a l t h could had s u p p l i e d a l l of the m a t e r i a l s discussed to determine i f that expert be or counsel found defect could at have phase of the t r i a l illness; Miller had that and lacked the capital offense time Dr. suffering of Scott the trial testify counsel from crimes; 5 during i n h i s opinion M i l l e r (3) M i l l e r ' s mental-health Miller the to have professional to I I . C . 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) - ( v ) , supra, disease mental namely: could mental- a mental (2) trial the guilt s u f f e r e d from a have presented e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t o f an a r g u m e n t requisite of k i l l i n g intent t o be convicted that of the two o r more p e r s o n s p u r s u a n t t o one s c h e m e o r o n e c o u r s e o f c o n d u c t a n d t h a t h e was g u i l t y o n l y a lesser-included offense, Although part Miller s u c h as murder presents this of h i s claim that h i s t r i a l withdrawing the defect this plea, or manslaughter. argument counsel of were i n his brief ineffective as for not-guilty-by-reason-of-mental-disease-orc l a i m was presented i n a different context The State argues t h a t t h i s p a r t i c u l a r a s s e r t i o n i s not p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t b e c a u s e i t was n o t p r e s e n t e d i n t h e amended R u l e 32 petition; however, this contention was a d d r e s s e d i n t h e R u l e 32 e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g . (Rule 32 H e a r i n g , R. 94.) 5 80 CR-08-1413 in his amended R u l e petition, claimed C. is the petition. (Miller's 319-22.) I n h i s amended R u l e that presenting 32 his trial counsel were 32 p e t i t i o n , ineffective a defense i n the g u i l t phase of the context i n which the Amended R u l e c i r c u i t court trial, addressed Miller for and not that Miller's claim. The c i r c u i t court s t a t e d the following i n i t s order: " I n p a r a g r a p h s 173-85 o f h i s amended p e t i t i o n , Miller claims that his trial counsel were i n e f f e c t i v e f o r f a i l i n g to present a defense theory or evidence d u r i n g the g u i l t phase of the trial. [ A m e n d e d R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n , C. 3 1 9 . ] M i l l e r argues that trial counsel could have presented the testimony o f D r . S c o t t o r a r g u m e n t s b a s e d on Dr. Scott's f i n d i n g s t h a t M i l l e r c o u l d not form the intent to commit capital murder based on his d e l u s i o n a l d i s o r d e r or t h a t M i l l e r should o n l y be c o n v i c t e d of manslaughter. " T h i s C o u r t d e n i e s M i l l e r ' s c l a i m b e c a u s e he h a s f a i l e d t o meet h i s b u r d e n of p r o o f o f demonstrating t h a t h i s t r i a l c o u n s e l s ' p e r f o r m a n c e was deficient u n d e r S t r i c k l a n d , 466 U.S. a t 6 8 7 , A l a . R. C r i m . P., 32.7(d). Trial counsel Johnson had reasonable s t r a t e g i c reasons f o r not p r e s e n t i n g evidence d u r i n g the g u i l t phase of t r i a l . Johnson t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s trial strategy focused on presenting the best e v i d e n c e and testimony t h a t would save Miller's life. [ M o t i o n f o r New T r i a l h e a r i n g , R. 80.] Based on t h e f a c t s a n d c i r c u m s t a n c e s of h i s case, Johnson determined that his best opportunity and most e f f e c t i v e method of p r e s e n t i n g such t e s t i m o n y would b e d u r i n g t h e p e n a l t y p h a s e . [ M o t i o n f o r New Trial H e a r i n g , R. 80; F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 219.] Part of t h i s s t r a t e g y a l s o i n v o l v e d g a i n i n g 81 32 CR-08-1413 credibility and favor with the jury by not presenting frivolous arguments during the g u i l t phase such as c h a l l e n g i n g t h e b l o o d s p a t t e r e x p e r t ' s t e s t i m o n y . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 2 1 9 ¬ 26.] "Johnson testified that the prosecution's e v i d e n c e was s t r o n g , t h a t he c o u l d n o t c o n t e s t t h e f a c t t h a t t h e s h o o t i n g s were p a r t o f a s i n g l e a c t , a n d t h a t h e made a s t r a t e g i c d e c i s i o n t o n o t p u t o n f r i v o l o u s evidence d u r i n g t h e g u i l t phase. [Motion f o r New T r i a l H e a r i n g , R. 1 4 ; F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 Hearing, R. 99, 219.] J o h n s o n felt that any potential testimony about M i l l e r ' s mental health d u r i n g t h e g u i l t p h a s e w o u l d be l e s s i m p a c t f u l o r even f r i v o l o u s . [ M o t i o n f o r New T r i a l H e a r i n g , R. 80.] H o w e v e r , J o h n s o n s t a t e d t h a t h e w a n t e d M i l l e r t o t e s t i f y o n h i s own b e h a l f d u r i n g t h e g u i l t p h a s e and t a l k e d w i t h M i l l e r about t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y , b u t M i l l e r r e f u s e d . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 2 2 0 . ] F i n a l l y , J o h n s o n a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t i t was n o t uncommon t o n o t p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e d u r i n g t h e g u i l t p h a s e a n d t o f o c u s s o l e l y on t h e p e n a l t y p h a s e . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 2 2 8 . ] " J o h n s o n ' s c o n c l u s i o n s on t h e s t r e n g t h o f t h e prosecution's case i n the g u i l t phase a r e w e l l s u p p o r t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e . As t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l Appeals r e c o g n i z e d on d i r e c t a p p e a l , '[g]iven the overwhelming evidence of M i l l e r ' s g u i l t including eyewitness testimony identifying Miller as t h e shooter -counsel has little choice but to acknowledge M i l l e r ' s guilt.' Miller, 913 S o . 2 d 1162. Johnson and cocounsel Blackwood faced the d a u n t i n g t a s k d u r i n g t h e g u i l t phase o f defending M i l l e r a g a i n s t s t r o n g e v i d e n c e w h i c h i n c l u d e d two separate eyewitnesses to the shootings a t both Ferguson E n t e r p r i s e s and Post A i r g a s . "Despite t h i s evidence, t h i s i s n o t a case i n which t r i a l counsel f a i l e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e p o t e n t i a l guilt phase testimony. As n o t e d above, Johnson 82 CR-08-1413 i n i t i a l l y h i r e d Dr. S c o t t t o i n v e s t i g a t e M i l l e r ' s mental health with the intention of presenting evidence d u r i n g the g u i l t phase t h a t M i l l e r could not appreciate the wrongfulness of h i s actions. [February 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 48.] However, after Dr. Scott determined that M i l l e r did not q u a l i f y f o r the i n s a n i t y defense under Alabama law, J o h n s o n w i t h d r e w t h e not g u i l t y by r e a s o n o f m e n t a l d e f e c t p l e a . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 91.] "As t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s n o t e d , t h i s d e c i s i o n was made ' a f t e r a t h o r o u g h i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e r e l e v a n t law and f a c t s of M i l l e r ' s case' and J o h n s o n ' s f o c u s on t h e p e n a l t y p h a s e 'was p a r t of his strategy to spare M i l l e r ' s l i f e . ' M i l l e r , 913 So. 2d at 1161 (holding that '[u]nder the circumstances o f t h i s c a s e , d e f e n s e c o u n s e l made a w e l l - r e a s o n e d d e c i s i o n t o f o c u s h i s e f f o r t s on t h a t part of the trial t h a t he believed offered the g r e a t e s t chance of success. We see no reason to second-guess defense counsel's decisions regarding this strategy.') M i l l e r has f a i l e d to offer any p r o o f t h a t t h i s t r i a l s t r a t e g y was n o t t h e p r o d u c t of a reasonably competent a t t o r n e y . " C o n t r a r y t o M i l l e r ' s c l a i m s , Johnson a l s o had s t r a t e g i c reasons f o r not p r e s e n t i n g Dr. Scott's testimony d u r i n g t h e g u i l t p h a s e i n an a t t e m p t t o argue t h a t M i l l e r d i d not have i n t e n t t o commit c a p i t a l m u r d e r . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 h e a r i n g , R. 222.] F i r s t , Johnson t e s t i f i e d t h a t i n h i s o p i n i o n , Dr. Scott's testimony w o u l d have had more o f an impact during the penalty phase based on the information a v a i l a b l e f o r Dr. Scott to present. [February 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 285.] Johnson s t a t e d t h a t much o f Dr. S c o t t ' s t e s t i m o n y d u r i n g t h e p e n a l t y p h a s e was b a s e d on h e a r s a y a n d therefore, Dr. S c o t t w o u l d h a v e b e e n more l i m i t e d i n p r o v i d i n g t e s t i m o n y i n t h e g u i l t p h a s e . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 2 8 4 . ] J o h n s o n a l s o d e t e r m i n e d t h a t Dr. S c o t t w o u l d have b e e n s u b j e c t t o a more s t r i n g e n t cross-examination d u r i n g the g u i l t phase. [February 83 CR-08-1413 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 2 8 4 . ] T h e r e f o r e , a s J o h n s o n a c k n o w l e d g e d , he c o u l d n o t h a v e s i m p l y introduced t h e b e n e f i c i a l , l i m i t e d p a r t s o f Dr. S c o t t ' s r e p o r t ; i n s t e a d the e n t i r e r e p o r t c o u l d have been s u b j e c t to cross-examination. [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 Hearing, R. 100.] " D r . S c o t t ' s own r e p o r t c o n t a i n e d c o u l d have r e b u t t e d any a r g u m e n t t h a t have t h e i n t e n t t o commit m u r d e r as d e l u s i o n a l d i s o r d e r . Despite the f a c t opined that Miller suffered from d i s o r d e r , Dr. S c o t t s t a t e d t h a t : opinions which M i l l e r d i d not a r e s u l t of a t h a t Dr. S c o t t a delusional "because Mr. Miller followed a second v i c t i m , shot the f i r s t v i c t i m again before he l e f t F e r g u s o n E n t e r p r i s e s a n d b e c a u s e he went t o a second work s i t e , i t is my opinion that the evidence indicates he a p p r e c i a t e s the n a t u r e and q u a l i t y of h i s a c t i o n s toward each v i c t i m . ' " [ M i l l e r ' s R u l e 32 E x h i b i t , 2 9 - 0 0 2 2 . ] M i l l e r ' s own e x p e r t ' s o p i n i o n was c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e v e r y same facts that the prosecution presented during the trial to argue that Miller intended to commit m u r d e r . [ D i r e c t A p p e a l , R. 1 2 5 4 - 6 1 , 1 2 6 4 - 7 5 . ] B a s e d on t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e , t r i a l c o u n s e l ' s decision t o n o t p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e d u r i n g t h e g u i l t phase and i n s t e a d f o c u s on t h e p e n a l t y p h a s e was reasonable and Miller has failed to present any evidence d e m o n s t r a t i n g how t h i s s t r a t e g y was deficient." (C. 2049-54.) The his circuit burden counsel's during of court proving decision not also found that that to he was present the g u i l t phase of the t r i a l . 84 Miller failed prejudiced by mental-health The circuit to court meet trial evidence stated: CR-08-1413 "Miller's e x p e r t , Dr. S c o t t , t e s t i f i e d d u r i n g the p e n a l t y phase of t r i a l that Miller was not unable to a p p r e c i a t e the wrongfulness of h i s a c t i o n s and t h e r e f o r e d i d n o t meet t h e l e g a l d e f i n i t i o n of insanity under Alabama law. [Direct Appeal, R. 1 3 8 4 . ] The o n l y o t h e r p o s s i b l e s t r a t e g y t h a t M i l l e r has a l l e g e d t h a t t r i a l c o u n s e l c o u l d have p u r s u e d d u r i n g t h e g u i l t p h a s e c e n t e r e d on a r g u i n g that M i l l e r d i d n o t have t h e i n t e n t t o commit capital murder. "However, such an argument would have run c o n t r a r y to the overwhelming evidence indicating Miller's i n t e n t t o commit m u r d e r . J o h n n y Cobb, an employee a t Ferguson E n t e r p r i s e s , heard s h o u t i n g , w i t n e s s e d M i l l e r walk out of the f r o n t door of the o f f i c e w i t h a p i s t o l towards h i s t r u c k , and d r i v e a w a y . M i l l e r , 913 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 5 4 . Cobb t h e n e n t e r e d the b u i l d i n g and saw C h r i s t o p h e r Yancy and Lee H o l d b r o o k s on t h e f l o o r . I d . Y a n c y was s h o t t h r e e t i m e s a n d H o l d b r o o k s was shot s i x times w i t h the f a t a l s h o t b e i n g f i r e d a s H o l d b r o o k s l o o k e d up a t M i l l e r . I d . a t 1156. "Andy A d d e r h o l d w i t n e s s e d M i l l e r a r r i v e a t P o s t A i r G a s , walk i n t o the o f f i c e , s p e c i f i c a l l y c a l l out to T e r r y J a r v i s , and t h e n r e p e a t e d l y s h o o t Jarvis. I d . A t 1155. M i l l e r then ordered Adderhold out of the office, but Adderhold still heard a final g u n s h o t a s he l e f t t h e b u i l d i n g . I_d. J a r v i s was s h o t five times w i t h the f a t a l shot to J a r v i s ' heart o c c u r r i n g w h e n M i l l e r was standing directly over him. I d . A t 1156. "Miller cannot demonstrate a reasonable probability that had trial counsel presented evidence i n the g u i l t phase t o c h a l l e n g e M i l l e r ' s i n t e n t t h a t the outcome o f h i s t r i a l would have been d i f f e r e n t i n the face of these b r u t a l f a c t s . M i l l e r specifically sought out two victims, shot them multiple times, proceeded to another location, s p e c i f i c a l l y sought out a n o t h e r v i c t i m , and s h o t him 85 CR-08-1413 m u l t i p l e t i m e s . M i l l e r ' s own e x p e r t i n d i c a t e d that such evidence indicates that Miller could ' a p p r e c i a t e t h e n a t u r e and q u a l i t y o f h i s a c t i o n s t o w a r d s e a c h v i c t i m . ' [ M i l l e r ' s R u l e 32 E x h i b i t , 29¬ 0022.] Even i f M i l l e r c o u l d d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t h i s t r i a l c o u n s e l were d e f i c i e n t d u r i n g the g u i l t phase, w h i c h he c a n n o t , he h a s f a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e how he was prejudiced under Strickland by his trial counsels' strategy." (C. 2054-56.) The c i r c u i t court's Miller's experts Miller at the counsel trial whom e a c h o f d i d not time of Alabama's the had four opinions evaluated from M i l l e r and legal crimes. s u p p o r t e d by the concluded d e f i n i t i o n of Accordingly, who legal resources in may not or may definition of pursuit have of found "insanity" at record. mental-health Miller's a the trial expending fifth that mental- Miller time of shootings. " ' C o u n s e l i s n o t i n e f f e c t i v e f o r r e l y i n g on a n e x p e r t ' s o p i n i o n . ' S m i t h v . S t a t e , [Ms. C R - 0 5 - 0 5 6 1 , S e p t e m b e r 26, 2008] So.3d , (Ala. Crim. App. 2008). " ' [ T ] r i a l c o u n s e l h a d no r e a s o n t o r e t a i n another p s y c h o l o g i s t to d i s p u t e the first expert's findings. "A postconviction petition does not show ineffective a s s i s t a n c e m e r e l y b e c a u s e i t p r e s e n t s a new 86 that "insanity" r e n d e r i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e by not limited expert had meet A l a b a m a ' s d i d not valuable, health counsel f i n d i n g s are met the CR-08-1413 expert o p i n i o n t h a t i s d i f f e r e n t from the t h e o r y u s e d a t t r i a l . " S t a t e v . Combs, 100 O h i o A p p . 3 d 90, 1 0 3 , 652 N.E. 2d 205, 213 ( 1 9 9 4 ) . See a l s o S t a t e v . F r o g g e , 359 N.C. 2 2 8 , 2 4 4 - 4 5 , 607 S.E. 2 d 6 2 7 , 637 (2005). "Counsel i s not i n e f f e c t i v e f o r f a i l i n g to shop around f o r a d d i t i o n a l e x p e r t s . " Smulls v . S t a t e , 71 S.W.3d 1 3 8 , 156 (Mo.2002). "Counsel i s not required to 'continue l o o k i n g f o r e x p e r t s j u s t b e c a u s e t h e o n e he has c o n s u l t e d g a v e an u n f a v o r a b l e o p i n i o n . ' S i d e b o t t o m v . D e l o , 46 F . 3 d 7 4 4 , 753 (8th C i r . 1 9 9 5 ) . " W a l l s v . B o w e r s o x , 151 F.3d 8 2 7 , 835 ( 8 t h C i r . 1 9 9 8 ) . ' " W a l d r o p v . S t a t e , 987 App. 2 0 0 7 ) . " James 3d v. State, , [Ms. (Ala. Crim. Furthermore, after withdraw M i l l e r ' s defect p l e a , which, not So. 2d 1186, CR-04-0395, App. March 26, (Ala. Crim. 2010] So. 2010) . having made t h e strategic d e c i s i o n to not-guilty-by-reason-of-mental-disease-ora s d i s c u s s e d , was counsel was evidence of M i l l e r ' s mental i l l n e s s ineffective the t r i a l . As M i l l e r ' s t r i a l h e a r i n g , he thought t h a t "the [evidence of M i l l e r ' s because 1193 for not unreasonable, declining to trial introduce d u r i n g the g u i l t phase of counsel e x p l a i n e d at the Rule 32 jury might have c o n s i d e r e d m e n t a l - h e a l t h p r o b l e m s ] t o be frivolous ... A l a b a m a d o e s n o t r e c o g n i z e d i m i n i s h e d c a p a c i t y a defense] that [as u n l e s s i t ' s d i m i n i s h e d t o the p o i n t t h a t i t becomes 87 CR-08-1413 the defense of i n s a n i t y . " (February 2008 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 263.) Miller's recognize the trial counsel "diminished case of B a r n e t t was c o r r e c t t h a t A l a b a m a d o e s n o t c a p a c i t y " as a defense, v . S t a t e , 540 S o . 2 d 810 as addressed (Ala. Crim. 1988): "Barnett argues t h a t the i s s u e of h i s mental s t a t e s h o u l d have been s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y under instructions that i t could negate the intent requirement f o r murder, thereby r e d u c i n g t h e k i l l i n g to manslaughter. This contention embodies the concept of 'diminished capacity' or 'diminished r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , ' a n d was s p e c i f i c a l l y r e j e c t e d b y the draftsmen o f o u r c r i m i n a l c o d e . See A l a . Code [1975] § 13A-6-3 (Commentary a t 1 5 8 ) : "'Under § 13A-6-3(a)(2), i t was o r i g i n a l l y proposed t o r e p l a c e the "heat o f p a s s i o n " due t o p r o v o c a t i o n c r i t e r i o n w i t h "extreme mental o r emotional d i s t u r b a n c e , " ... w h i c h a p p r o a c h i s b e i n g a d o p t e d b y many modern c r i m i n a l codes This standard o r i g i n a t e d i n t h e M o d e l P e n a l Code § 210.3 and i s discussed i n Commentary, (Tent. D r a f t No. 9) p p . 2 8 - 2 9 . "'However, some members of the A d v i s o r y Committee c o n s i d e r e d t h e p r o p o s a l unsound, u n c l e a r and s u s c e p t i b l e o f abuse, s o i t was n o t a d o p t e d , a n d § 1 3 A - 6 - 3 ( a ) (2) r e t a i n s the "heat o f p a s s i o n " under l e g a l p r o v o c a t i o n d e f e n s e . ' § 13A-6-3 Commentary (emphasis added). "See a l s o N e e l l e y v. ( A l a . C r . App. 1985), S t a t e , 494 S o . 2 d a f f i r m e d , Ex p a r t e 88 6 6 9 , 682 Neelley, i n App. CR-08-1413 494 S o . 2 d 697 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) c e r t . d e n i e d , N e e l l e y v. A l a b a m a , 480 U.S. 9 2 6 , 107 S. C t . 1 3 8 9 , 94 L. E d . 2 d 702 ( 1 9 8 7 ) ; H i l l v . S t a t e , 507 S o . 2 d 5 5 4 , 556 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 6 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , E x p a r t e H i l l , 507 S o . 2 d 558 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . "Although Alabama adopted the c r i t e r i o n for i n s a n i t y c o n t a i n e d i n § 4.01 of the Model Penal Code, i t d i d n o t adopt t h e accompanying s e c t i o n o f the M o d e l P e n a l Code, § 4 . 0 2 ( 1 ) , w h i c h p r o v i d e d t h a t '[e]vidence that the defendant suffered from a mental d i s e a s e or d e f e c t i s a d m i s s i b l e whenever i t i s r e l e v a n t to prove that the defendant d i d or d i d n o t h a v e a s t a t e o f m i n d w h i c h i s an e l e m e n t o f t h e offense.' Compare Model Penal Code § 4.02 ( A . L . I . 1 9 8 0 ) w i t h A l a . Code § 13A-3-1 ( 1 9 7 5 ) . See § 13A-3-1 Commentary. "'The rule applied in this jurisdiction is sometimes referred to as the 'all-or-nothing' approach.' Hill, 507 So. 2d a t 556. Under this a p p r o a c h , a 'defendant must e i t h e r e s t a b l i s h h i s i n s a n i t y as a c o m p l e t e d e f e n s e t o o r e x c u s e f o r t h e c r i m e , o r he m u s t be h e l d t o f u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the c r i m e c h a r g e d . ' A n n o t . , 22 A . L . R . 3 d 1 2 2 8 , § 4 a t 1236 (1968). " A c c o r d i n g l y , B a r n e t t was not e n t i t l e d t o a c h a r g e o n r e c k l e s s m a n s l a u g h t e r on t h e t h e o r y o f diminished mental capacity. This court's conclusion i n H i l l , 507 S o . 2 d a t 5 5 6 - 5 7 , i s e q u a l l y a p p l i c a b l e here: "'If the j u r y i n the p r e s e n t case had found that appellant H i l l was suffering from a mental d i s e a s e or d e f e c t at the time she s h o t t h e d e c e d e n t and t h a t t h a t d i s e a s e or d e f e c t p r o d u c e d t h e a c t , t h e n she c o u l d be f o u n d n o t g u i l t y by r e a s o n o f m e n t a l defect. I n t h a t e v e n t , a c h a r g e on the lesser included offense would not be needed. I f , on t h e o t h e r h a n d , s h e was 89 CR-08-1413 f o u n d t o be s a n e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e m u r d e r , a lesser included offense charge on r e c k l e s s m a n s l a u g h t e r s h o u l d be g i v e n o n l y i f the f a c t s of the p a r t i c u l a r c a s e - - f a c t s unrelated to any diminished mental c a p a c i t y - - w o u l d warrant the g i v i n g of such a charge.... Here, the a p p e l l a n t admitted taking the gun from a dresser drawer, p o i n t i n g i t a t t h e head o f t h e d e c e d e n t and s h o o t i n g him i n the head r e p e a t e d l y . Her a c t i o n s were not c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a f i n d i n g of recklessness. Since there was no evidence i n the present case t h a t would support an instruction on reckless manslaughter, the t r i a l court d i d not e r r i n d e n y i n g t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s c h a r g e . ' 507 So. 2d a t 556-57 ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) . " 540 So. added). (Ala. 2d at See 812 also, C r i m . App. U.S. , appellant's (some e m p h a s i s Sharifi on the this 129 S.Ct. contention failed direct 491 that capacity" appeal, assertion that case d i d not this his trial 907, 932-33 v. A l a b a m a , no merit rejection he was entitled of manslaughter. are "unrelated warrant Court Sharifi 2d emphasis of to the is unconstitutional). that that So. Alabama's doctrine to prove 993 some (2008)(finding lesser-included offense particular mental State, 2008), c e r t . denied, diminished-capacity Miller v. in original; 90 were a The any such a charge. specifically counsel to to charge facts in diminished In rejected ineffective fact, on Miller's for not CR-08-1413 presenting evidence delusions to passion, Miller, show rather 913 So. during the than 2d murders as at the were part 1161. guilt of We a phase of committed in common "Miller's a scheme heat or of plan." reasoned: "The f a c t t h a t a v i c t i m may h a v e s p r e a d r u m o r s about the defendant or 'smarted o f f ' to a defendant i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o m i t i g a t e an i n t e n t i o n a l killing under any doctrine of provocation or heat of p a s s i o n . S e e , e . g . , B o n e v . S t a t e , 706 So. 2 d 1291, 1297 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1997) (citing Harrison v. S t a t e , 580 So. 2d 73, 74 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1991) (mere w o r d s o r g e s t u r e s w i l l n o t r e d u c e a h o m i c i d e from murder t o manslaughter))." 913 So. 2d at Miller counsel guilty 1161. d i d not were by ineffective reason presenting meet h i s b u r d e n of p r o v i n g evidence of of for withdrawing mental disease Miller's his or mental that his plea of not for not during the defect illness trial g u i l t phase. A c c o r d i n g l y , because M i l l e r ' s u n d e r l y i n g c l a i m of ineffective failed to assistance prove by of trial counsel a preponderance a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l were i n e f f e c t i v e presented counsel at this claim of of the 91 merit, evidence assistance proceedings. 401. no Miller that his i n t h e manner i n w h i c h ineffective i n the p o s t - s e n t e n c i n g has of P a y n e , 791 they trial So. 2d CR-08-1413 Miller contends that ineffective phase of the trial. in his assistance than focusing invited brief, to jury noted, and this was to a defense feel only [in serving 'more claim Miller the contempt was a 913 the raised rendered i n the that phase] second So. 2d for him. "his indicated motion On at direct a rather than a t 1161. rejected this new appeal opening counsel prosecutor' We 34-35.) for counsel's that counsel (Miller's reply brief, i n the guilt rather his t r i a l c i r c u i t court. asserted guilt like Miller, counsel theory, at 68-70; M i l l e r ' s r e j e c t e d by remarks counsel." opening statement j u r y on this Court, trial S p e c i f i c a l l y , M i l l e r maintains that 11(B)(2)(b), As trial the the his was defense claim, reasoning: "Under the circumstances of this case, defense c o u n s e l made a w e l l - r e a s o n e d d e c i s i o n to focus h i s e f f o r t s on t h a t p a r t o f t h e t r i a l t h a t he believed o f f e r e d the g r e a t e s t chance of s u c c e s s . We s e e no reason to second-guess defense counsel's decision regarding this strategy." 913 So. 2d Miller effectively at 1161. contends that had his argued i n the p o s t - s e n t e n c i n g 92 appellate counsel proceedings that his CR-08-1413 trial would counsel's have been Defense After opening entitled counsel introducing statement to ineffective, Miller relief. Johnson's himself was and opening statement his cocounsel, was Johnson brief. said: "We a r e a t a p a r t o f t h e p r o c e s s h e r e t h a t t h e l a w s a y s i s n e c e s s a r y . We a l l , a t t h i s p o i n t , h a v e b e e n a s s i g n e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . My responsibility a n d M r . B l a c k w o o d ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s t o make s u r e t h a t i n t h i s c a s e , as i n any o t h e r c a s e , t h a t we keep t h e b u r d e n s where t h e law s a y s t h e b u r d e n s belong, that we challenge any evidence or any s t a t e m e n t t h a t i s made t h a t we t h i n k i s w r o n g . "Our r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , h o w e v e r , i s n o t -- a n d i s n o t e v e r t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f a l a w y e r t o do t h i n g s f r i v o l o u s . A n d we w i l l n o t do t h a t i n t h i s c a s e . " S i n c e A u g u s t t h e 5 t h o f 1999, I have p r o b a b l y had dozens, i f not hundreds, of cameras and microphones and t a p e r e c o r d e r s s t u c k i n my face a s k i n g me w h a t h a p p e n e d h e r e , I g u e s s p r e s u m a b l y on the theory that I would d i s c l o s e something that w o u l d make a l l o f t h i s seem l o g i c a l . " I h a v e n o t s a i d a n y t h i n g t h a t makes t h i s seem logical and reasonable because I don't know a n y t h i n g . You won't h e a r a n y t h i n g c o m i n g f r o m t h e d e f e n s e t h a t makes t h i s seem l o g i c a l and r e a s o n a b l e . To present anything in that regard would be f r i v o l o u s . We w i l l n o t e n g a g e i n f r i v o l i t y . "The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y have we accept and responsibility i s , but f r i v o l o u s . T h a t w o u l d be that t h a t Mr. B l a c k w o o d and I we will do what our we will n o t do anything irresponsible. " I w i l l n o t o f f e r you any e v i d e n c e i n t h i s c a s e w o u l d make t h i s a c t s e e m a n y l e s s b r u t a l and 93 CR-08-1413 a n y l e s s i n h u m a n e t h a n i t w a s . I f y o u w a n t t o know what happened i n t h i s c a s e , I t h i n k you j u s t g o t a p r e t t y good r e c i t a t i o n o f what happened i n t h i s c a s e . I t h i n k M r . Owens [ t h e p r o s e c u t o r ] g o t m o s t o f it right. Some o f i t seems t o me t o be a l i t t l e e m b e l l i s h e d , b u t so w h a t . F u n d a m e n t a l l y , you h e a r d what happened. "Now, t h e m o s t s e r i o u s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n t h i s c a s e i s p l a c e d on y o u . A n d y o u h a v e g o n e t h r o u g h t h e process of jury s e l e c t i o n a n d y o u a r e t h e o n e s who s u r v i v e d the process of jury selection. "And you d i d n o t s u r v i v e b e c a u s e you d o n ' t h a v e o p i n i o n s a b o u t t h i s c a s e . Y o u w o u l d be -- i t w o u l d be u n n a t u r a l , f r o m what most o f you h a v e s e e n a n d h e a r d , n o t t o h a v e an o p i n i o n i n t h i s c a s e . Y o u s u r v i v e d b e c a u s e y o u h a v e s a i d we w i l l n o t l e t o u r o p i n i o n s a f f e c t t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t h a t i s p l a c e d on us i n t h i s c a s e . "The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t h a t i s p l a c e d on y o u i n t h i s c a s e w i l l be a n awesome o n e , b u t I s u g g e s t t h i s t o y o u , a t t h e e n d o f t h i s c a s e -- y o u w i l l h a v e t o make a t l e a s t t w o d e c i s i o n s i n t h i s c a s e t h a t p l a c e s m o r e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y on y o u t h a n I w i l l e v e r h a v e i n any c a s e I w i l l e v e r s t a n d f o r i n a c o u r t r o o m . "But at the end, i f you accept your responsibility i n t h e same way I -- t h a t everyone else, not j u s t me, that everyone else i n this c o u r t r o o m i s a c c e p t i n g t h e i r s , then a t t h e end o f t h i s , when t h i s i s a l l o v e r , y o u w i l l be p r o u d . You w o n ' t be a s h a m e d , y o u w i l l b e p r o u d o f a l e a s t w h a t you have done. " I don't e x p e c t t h a t a t any p o i n t i n t h i s case you will e v e r be a n y t h i n g b u t ashamed o f what h a p p e n e d t h a t c a u s e d us t o be h e r e . I'm n o t g o i n g t o a s k -- f o r me t o s u g g e s t a n y t h i n g t o t h e c o n t r a r y would be frivolous. You won't see anything f r i v o l o u s done i n t h i s c a s e . 94 CR-08-1413 "You will see a l o t of m e a n i n g f u l things, t h o u g h , p r e s e n t e d t o y o u . There w i l l be a l o t o f meaningful evidence and a l o t of meaningful a r g u m e n t s made t o y o u . The o n l y t h i n g I a s k a t t h i s point i s t h a t you a c c e p t your r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as jurors and then we w i l l a l l be p r o u d that we p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s . Thank y o u . " (Direct Appeal, R. 813-16.) D u r i n g t h e h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n said that Johnson his h i s primary indicated opening j u r o r s might statement i n order he s o u g h t to dispel that objective, i n the resentment the evidence Johnson a veniremember other veniremembers a waste of time. told Miller to reach life. f e l t the guilt. toward trial was e m p h a s i s was o n s a v i n g M i l l e r ' s because the j u r o r s Miller's harbor Johnson was a w a s t e o f t i m e b e c a u s e o f t h e o v e r w h e l m i n g trial of that f o r a new t r i a l , explained that during voir the court expressing their that he had opinion that dire at overheard the trial 6 The r e c o r d from t h e d i r e c t appeal i n d i c a t e s that a v e n i r e m e m b e r i n f o r m e d t h e c o u r t t h a t he h a d o v e r h e a r d o t h e r veniremembers express that t h e t r i a l was a w a s t e o f t i m e because t h e f a c t s were " c u t and d r i e d . " The veniremember c o u l d n o t i d e n t i f y who made t h e s t a t e m e n t s . J o h n s o n moved t o quash t h e v e n i r e . The c i r c u i t c o u r t d e n i e d J o h n s o n ' s motion t o q u a s h t h e v e n i r e ; h o w e v e r , t h e v e n i r e m e m b e r who t o l d t h e c o u r t w h a t h e h a d o v e r h e a r d was e x c u s e d f r o m s e r v i c e . (Direct A p p e a l , R. 6 9 1 - 9 7 . ) 6 95 CR-08-1413 Johnson t e s t i f i e d for new a s f o l l o w s a t t h e h e a r i n g on t h e motion trial: "I b e l i e v e d t h a t the o n l y t h i n g t h a t the S t a t e c o u l d p o s s i b l y do w r o n g i n t h i s c a s e w o u l d be t o o v e r k i l l . I was t r y i n g t o p o s t u r e t o make t h a t seem t o b e t h e c a s e , t h a t we c o u l d n o t do a n y t h i n g t h a t would not seem to the j u r y t o be f r i v o l o u s , e s p e c i a l l y on t h e h e e l s o f w h a t I w o u l d h a v e k n o w n , I think, intuitively. "But t h i s i s t h e o n l y t i m e I've e v e r had a j u r o r s i t t h e r e a n d t e l l me ' t h a t we a l l t h i n k t h i s i s a waste of time' or something t o t h a t e f f e c t . So I t h o u g h t i t was i m p o r t a n t t h a t t h e j u r y u n d e r s t a n d , and I b e l i e v e I a s k e d t h e C o u r t t o i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y t h a t t h i s t r i a l was n o t s o m e t h i n g t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was p u t t i n g t h e m t h r o u g h , b u t s o m e t h i n g t h a t t h e l a w was p u t t i n g t h e m t h r o u g h . So t h a t was j u s t s o r t o f the nature and the context i n which [opening s t a t e m e n t ] was p r e s e n t e d . " (Motion f o r New Johnson that and said the g u i l t that process --- a -- the phase and (February R. duty a very the the that (Motion 59.) wanted to emphasize of the t r i a l that fact Johnson's testimony he played civic uncontradicted." regard. Hearing, that the j u r o r s performing despite Trial the f o r New 2008 R u l e should was not "evidence Trial a very important role take in pride waste was Hearing, jurors of that in time largely R. 62-63.) 32 h e a r i n g was s i m i l a r i n t h i s 32 H e a r i n g , 96 was significant jurors trial i n the Rule process to the R. 137-43.) CR-08-1413 The burden circuit held that of p r o v i n g that h i s t r i a l assistance guilt court i n what phase denying of he the Miller's said 32 The failed to counsel rendered in his trial. Rule Miller opening court meet ineffective statement stated in his at the i t s order claim: " T r i a l c o u n s e l J o h n s o n ' s o p e n i n g s t a t e m e n t was the p r o d u c t of a r e a s o n a b l e , s t r a t e g i c d e c i s i o n to win f a v o r w i t h t h e j u r y by not p r e s e n t i n g f r i v o l o u s arguments i n order to spare M i l l e r ' s l i f e . Miller has not presented any evidence to demonstrate J o h n s o n ' s s t r a t e g y was unreasonable." (C. 2048.) The because The circuit Miller Court court failed to also denied establish relief the on requisite this prejudice. stated: " M i l l e r h a s p r e s e n t e d no e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g t h e i m p a c t o f J o h n s o n ' s s t a t e m e n t s on t h e j u r y , n o r h a s M i l l e r demonstrated a reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y that the outcome of the g u i l t phase would have been [ d i f f e r e n t ] h a d J o h n s o n n o t made t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s . In general, statements of counsel 'are usually v a l u e d by t h e j u r y a t t h e i r t r u e w o r t h and a r e n o t e x p e c t e d t o become f a c t o r s i n t h e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e v e r d i c t . ' M i n o r v . S t a t e , 914 So. 2d 3 7 2 , 417 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 4 ) . M i l l e r has o f f e r e d n o t h i n g more i n support of h i s c l a i m than the bare, conclusory allegation that Johnson's opening statement was i m p r o p e r and t h a t i t p r e j u d i c e d t h e j u r y , w i t h o u t proving s p e c i f i c f a c t s that demonstrate prejudice. Accordingly, Miller has not met h i s burden of demonstrating prejudice under Strickland and therefore, this claim i s denied." 97 claim CR-08-1413 (C. 2048-49.) We find no abuse of discretion in the circuit court's findings. "Attorneys representing c a p i t a l defendants face daunting challenges i n developing t r i a l s t r a t e g i e s , not l e a s t because the defendant's g u i l t i s o f t e n c l e a r . P r o s e c u t o r s a r e more l i k e l y t o s e e k t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y , and t o r e f u s e t o a c c e p t a p l e a t o a l i f e s e n t e n c e , when t h e e v i d e n c e i s o v e r w h e l m i n g a n d t h e crime heinous. See G o o d p a s t e r , The T r i a l f o r L i f e : Effective Assistance of C o u n s e l i n Death Penalty C a s e s , 58 N.Y.U.L. R e v . 2 99, 32 9 (1 9 8 3 ) . In such cases, 'avoiding execution [may be] the b e s t and o n l y r e a l i s t i c r e s u l t p o s s i b l e . ' ABA G u i d e l i n e s f o r t h e A p p o i n t m e n t and Performance of Defense Counsel i n Death P e n a l t y Cases § 10.9.1, Commentary ( r e v . e d . 2 0 0 3 ) , r e p r i n t e d i n 31 H o f s t r a L. R e v . 913, 1040 (2003). " C o u n s e l t h e r e f o r e may reasonably decide to f o c u s on t h e t r i a l ' s p e n a l t y p h a s e , a t w h i c h t i m e counsel's m i s s i o n i s to persuade the t r i e r t h a t h i s c l i e n t ' s l i f e s h o u l d be s p a r e d . U n a b l e t o n e g o t i a t e a guilty plea i n exchange f o r a l i f e sentence, d e f e n s e c o u n s e l must s t r i v e a t the g u i l t phase t o avoid a counterproductive course. See Lyon, D e f e n d i n g t h e D e a t h P e n a l t y C a s e : What M a k e s D e a t h D i f f e r e n t ? 42 M e r c e r L. R e v . 6 9 5 , 708 ( 1 9 9 1 ) ( ' I t i s n o t g o o d t o p u t on a "he d i d n ' t do i t " d e f e n s e a n d a "he i s s o r r y he d i d i t " m i t i g a t i o n . T h i s j u s t d o e s n o t w o r k . The j u r y w i l l g i v e t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y t o the c l i e n t and, i n e s s e n c e , the a t t o r n e y . ' ) ; Sundby, The C a p i t a l J u r y a n d A b s o l u t i o n : The I n t e r s e c t i o n o f T r i a l S t r a t e g y , Remorse, and t h e D e a t h P e n a l t y , 8 3 C o r n e l l L.Rev. 1557, 1589-1591 (1998) ( i n t e r v i e w s o f jurors in capital trials indicate that juries approach the sentencing phase 'cynically' where counsel's sentencing-phase presentation i s l o g i c a l l y i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the g u i l t - p h a s e d e f e n s e ) ; i d . , at 98 CR-08-1413 1597 (in c a p i t a l cases, a ' r u n - o f - t h e - m i l l s t r a t e g y of c h a l l e n g i n g the p r o s e c u t i o n ' s case f o r f a i l i n g to p r o v e g u i l t beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt' can have d i r e implications f o r the sentencing phase). In this light, counsel c a n n o t be deemed i n e f f e c t i v e for a t t e m p t i n g t o i m p r e s s t h e j u r y w i t h h i s c a n d o r and h i s u n w i l l i n g n e s s t o e n g a g e i n 'a u s e l e s s charade.' See Cronic, 466 U.S. [648], at 656-657, n. 19 [(1984)], 104 S. Ct. 2039. Renowned advocate Clarence Darrow, we note, famously employed a similar strategy as counsel for the youthful, cold-blooded killers Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold. I m p l o r i n g the judge to spare the boys' lives, Darrow d e c l a r e d : ' I do n o t know how much s a l v a g e t h e r e i s i n t h e s e two b o y s . ... I w i l l be h o n e s t w i t h t h i s c o u r t a s I h a v e t r i e d t o be f r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g . I know t h a t t h e s e b o y s a r e n o t f i t t o be at l a r g e . ' Attorney f o r t h e Damned: Clarence D a r r o w i n t h e C o u r t r o o m 84 (A. W e i n b e r g e d . 1 9 8 9 ) ; see T r . o f O r a l A r g . 40-41 (Darrow's c l i e n t s ' d i d n o t e x p r e s s l y c o n s e n t t o w h a t he d i d . B u t he saved t h e i r l i v e s . ' ) ; c f . Y a r b o r o u g h v . G e n t r y , 540 U.S. 1, 9-10 (2003) (per c u r i a m ) . " Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175, 191-92 (2004). (Footnotes omitted.) Miller trial failed counsel's constituted manner his burden statement of at assistance. proving the that guilt Therefore, which appellate counsel they presented 99 were this i t follows ineffective claim of his phase a l s o f a i l e d t o p r o v e by a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f that his in meet opening ineffective t h a t M i l l e r has evidence to in the the ineffective CR-08-1413 assistance of proceedings. trial Payne, counsel 791 So. in 2d at the post-sentencing 401. 3. Miller's trial appellate proceedings counsel and counsel on were i n e f f e c t i v e presenting trial. The Court. In mitigating circuit argued i n the d i r e c t appeal f o r not evidence motion-for-new- that Miller's trial a d e q u a t e l y i n v e s t i g a t i n g and in the penalty-phase court denied Miller's rejecting this claim, this claim, Court as of did wrote: " M i l l e r f u r t h e r contends that t r i a l counsel's failure 'to adequately explore a l l possible mitigating routes' left counsel unable to make well-informed decisions on the question of m i t i g a t i o n . As s e t o u t a b o v e , c o u n s e l t e s t i f i e d a t length regarding his representation of Miller, i n c l u d i n g h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the r e l e v a n t law and facts, and his strategy to save M i l l e r from a sentence of death. Counsel e x p l a i n e d h i s reasons f o r presenting evidence regarding M i l l e r ' s family and s o c i a l h i s t o r y t h r o u g h Dr. S c o t t ' s t e s t i m o n y , rather t h a n t h r o u g h v a r i o u s f a m i l y m e m b e r s . B a s e d on our review o f t h e r e c o r d , we f a i l t o see what other mitigating evidence counsel could have offered. M o r e o v e r , d e s p i t e M i l l e r ' s a l l e g a t i o n s , he o f f e r s no a d d i t i o n a l m i t i g a t i n g evidence t h a t counsel d i d not d i s c o v e r during h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n or t h a t counsel failed to consider in formulating his defense strategy. Accordingly, we are unable to say that counsel was ineffective as to this claim. See L a w h o r n v . S t a t e , 756 So. 2 d 9 7 1 , 986 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999)." Miller, 913 So. 2d at 1163 (emphasis 100 added). the this CR-08-1413 Miller alleges mitigating that evidence there was a v a i l a b l e to a "mountain trial counsel presented at t r i a l , " t h a t , because of t r i a l inadequate" i n v e s t i g a t i o n , the discovered. (Miller's reply at brief, investigation with the 23-34.) into the American Bar conducting an at argues that evidence failed Association ("ABA") investigation to adequately relatives; and "employment, records Miller counsel and was medical counsel's to into (Miller's brief, Miller's maintains reply that his brief, trial comply trial counsel close collect records, and 23-29.) counsel d i d not As a learn serious (B), result, about: "Mr. M i l l e r ' s f a m i l y , s o c i a l , a n d m e n t a l h e a l t h h i s t o r y , i n c l u d i n g (i) the extent of instability, poverty and hardship Mr. Miller suffered in childhood as a r e s u l t of his father's constant uprooting of the family and erratic employment h i s t o r y ; ( i i ) t h e e x t r e m e p h y s i c a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l abuse Ivan [Miller's father] inflicted on the f a m i l y , i n c l u d i n g t h e p a r t i c u l a r w r a t h he reserved 101 his medical I I ( B ) ( 2 ) ( c ) ( i ) ( A ) and at for potential Miller's not not Miller's guidelines and did 71; o f h i s n u m e r o u s f a m i l y members w i t h d o c u m e n t e d 73-82; Miller trial educational, mental i l l n e s s . " at (2) interview not "grossly trial mitigating was evidence m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e i n d e a t h - c a s e s b e c a u s e : (1) failed that 11(B)(2)(c), He appropriate compelling counsel's mitigating brief, of CR-08-1413 f o r Mr. mental Miller ethic, for his (Miller's M i l l e r ; ( i i i )the well-documented h i s t o r y of i l l n e s s of at l e a s t f o u r g e n e r a t i o n s of the family; and ( i v ) Mr. M i l l e r ' s s t r o n g work good employment h i s t o r y , f i n a n c i a l support f a m i l y , and l o v i n g f a m i l y relationships." brief, Miller at 75.) alleges additional that mitigating evidence have been trial at counsel presented the penalty-phase he brief, Additionally, sentenced he asserts c o u n s e l p r o p e r l y p r e s e n t e d and of ineffective assistance new-trial proceedings information, brief, he we investigation the ABA note into guidelines investigation that had was at that on not brief, appellate appeal with claim motion-for- this additional relief. (Miller's trial counsel's 110-17.) whether potential is his c o u n s e l i n the the (Miller's supported t h i s underlying trial and death. would have been e n t i t l e d to II(B)(2)(c)(v), First, of to this of I I ( B ) (2) (c) ( i i ) ( A ) - ( G ) , a t 8 2 - 9 9 ; M i l l e r ' s r e p l y 29-34.) not his trial, at may had Miller's mitigating dispositive evidence of whether adhered counsels' reasonable. "We have h e l d that the ABA Guidelines may ' p r o v i d e g u i d a n c e as t o w h a t i s r e a s o n a b l e i n t e r m s of counsel's representation, [but] they are not 102 to CR-08-1413 d e t e r m i n a t i v e . ' J o n e s v . S t a t e , 43 S o . 3d 1 2 5 8 , (Ala. C r i m . App. 2007).[ ] 1278 7 "The d a n g e r o f a d o p t i n g t h e ABA G u i d e l i n e s a s determinative on the issue of a lawyer's e f f e c t i v e n e s s was d i s c u s s e d b y t h e U n i t e d States Court of Appeals f o r the Fourth C i r c u i t : "'[T]o hold defense counsel responsible f o r performing every task that t h e ABA G u i d e l i n e s s a y he " s h o u l d " do i s t o impose p r e c i s e l y the " s e t of d e t a i l e d r u l e s for counsel's conduct" t h a t t h e Supreme Court has l o n g s i n c e r e j e c t e d as being unable to " s a t i s f a c t o r i l y take account of the variety of circumstances faced by defense counsel or the range of l e g i t i m a t e d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g how b e s t t o r e p r e s e n t a c r i m i n a l d e f e n d a n t . " S t r i c k l a n d , 466 U.S. a t 6 8 8 - 8 9 , 104 S . C t . 2 0 5 2 , 80 L . E d . 2 d 6 7 4 . Such a c a t e g o r i c a l h o l d i n g would l e a d t o n e e d l e s s and e x p e n s i v e l a y e r s of process with the unintended e f f e c t of compromising process. ... Recognition of the ABA Guidelines as the minimum prevailing community s t a n d a r d would t r a n s f o r m defense "The ABA G u i d e l i n e s w e r e r e v i s e d i n 2 0 0 3 -after [ M i l l e r ] was t r i e d a n d c o n v i c t e d i n [ 2 0 0 0 . ] 'After Wiggins [v. S m i t h , 5 3 9 U.S. 510 ( 2 0 0 3 ) ] , t h e s e G u i d e l i n e s h a v e b e e n r e v i s e d t o be e v e n more e x a c t i n g i n s o f a r as t h e y r e q u i r e c o u n s e l " t o s e e k i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t ... r e b u t s t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s c a s e i n a g g r a v a t i o n , " ... a n d t o " d e t e r m i n e at the e a r l i e s t p o s s i b l e time what a g g r a v a t i n g f a c t o r s t h e p r o s e c u t i o n w i l l r e l y upon i n s e e k i n g t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y and what e v i d e n c e will b e o f f e r e d i n s u p p o r t t h e r e o f . " ' U n i t e d S t a t e s v . K a r a k e , 370 F. S u p p . 2 7 5 , 278 (370 F . S u p p . 2 d 2 7 5 , 278 D.C. 2 0 0 5 ) . '[W]e r e c o g n i z e t h a t we m u s t m e a s u r e c o u n s e l ' s p e r f o r m a n c e i n t h i s case a g a i n s t the p r e v a i l i n g standards a t the time o f [ M i l l e r ' ] trial.' H a m b l i n v . M i t c h e l l , 354 F . 3 d 4 8 2 , 4 8 7 - 8 8 ( 6 t h C i r . 2003)." Ray, So. 3d a t n. 5. 7 103 CR-08-1413 lawyers' judgments i n t o mindless defensive reactions t o a p o t e n t i a l habeas claim, d i v o r c e d from t h e i n d i v i d u a l i z e d needs o f professional representation. Those needs c a l l f o r more n u a n c e d r e s p o n s e s t h a n c a n be provided by following preestablished mechanical rules of representation "'While t h e ABA G u i d e l i n e s provide noble standards f o r l e g a l representation i n c a p i t a l cases and a r e i n t e n d e d t o improve that r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , they nevertheless can o n l y be c o n s i d e r e d as p a r t o f t h e o v e r a l l calculus of whether counsel's representation falls b e l o w an o b j e c t i v e standard of reasonableness; they still serve only as " g u i d e s , " S t r i c k l a n d , 466 U.S. a t 6 8 8 , 104 S. C t . 2 0 5 2 , n o t m i n i m u m constitutional standards.' " Y a r b r o u g h v . J o h n s o n , 520 F. 3 d 3 2 9 , 3 3 9 ( 4 t h C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) . S e e a l s o T o r r e s v . S t a t e , 120 P. 3 d 1 1 8 4 , 1189 ( O k l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ) ('W]e w i l l n o t f i n d t h a t c a p i t a l c o u n s e l was p e r s e i n e f f e c t i v e s i m p l y because counsel's representation differed from current c a p i t a l p r a c t i c e customs, even where t h e d i f f e r e n c e s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t . A d e f e n d a n t must s t i l l show that he was prejudiced by counsel's r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . ' ) . We a g r e e w i t h t h e U n i t e d States Court of Appeals f o r the Fourth Circuit. "Also, the United States W i g g i n s [ v . S m i t h , 5 3 9 U.S. 510 Supreme (2003),] Court i n stated: " ' [ C ] o u n s e l h a s a d u t y t o make r e a s o n a b l e investigations o r t o make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary [A] p a r t i c u l a r d e c i s i o n n o t t o i n v e s t i g a t e must be d i r e c t l y a s s e s s e d f o r r e a s o n a b l e n e s s i n all the circumstances, applying a heavy 104 CR-08-1413 measure of judgments. deference to counsel's "'... [O]ur principal concern in deciding whether [counsel] exercised " r e a s o n a b l e p r o f e s s i o n a l judgmen[t]" i s not whether c o u n s e l s h o u l d have p r e s e n t e d a mitigation case. Rather, we focus on whether the investigation supporting counsel's decision not to introduce mitigating evidence ... was itself reasonable. In assessing counsel's i n v e s t i g a t i o n , we m u s t c o n d u c t an o b j e c t i v e review of t h e i r performance, measured f o r "reasonableness under prevailing professional norms," which includes a context-dependent c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the c h a l l e n g e d c o n d u c t as s e e n " f r o m c o u n s e l ' s p e r s p e c t i v e at the time."' "539 Ray, U.S. So. at 3d 521-23." at . (i) With turn the aforementioned to M i l l e r ' s allegation adequately i n t e r v i e w him stated following the principles of that his t r i a l and his family. law in counsel The mind, we failed to circuit court i n i t s order: " I n p a r a g r a p h s 31-65 o f h i s a m e n d e d p e t i t i o n [C. 276-88], Miller alleges that his t r i a l counsel f a i l e d to adequately i n v e s t i g a t e f a c t s p e r t a i n i n g to his b a c k g r o u n d and develop a mitigation case to present to the j u r y . [C. 2 7 6 . ] M i l l e r claims that his trial counsel failed to u t i l i z e his family members as a source of information concerning 105 CR-08-1413 Miller's unstable childhood and p s y c h o l o g i c a l a b u s e he r e c e i v e d . the physical and "This c l a i m i s d e n i e d by t h i s Court because i t i s d i r e c t l y r e f u t e d by t h e r e c o r d and i t s t h e r e f o r e w i t h o u t m e r i t . See G a d d y v . S t a t e , 952 S o . 2 d 1 1 4 9 , 1161 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ) ; D u n c a n v . S t a t e , 925 So. 2 d 2 4 5 , 266 ( A l a . Crim. App. 2005). Trial c o u n s e l J o h n s o n t e s t i f i e d t h a t he met w i t h M i l l e r p e r s o n a l l y 'at l e a s t h a l f a dozen times.' [Direct A p p e a l , M o t i o n f o r New T r i a l H e a r i n g , R. 10] D u r i n g t h e e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g , J o h n s o n s t a t e d t h a t he a n d co-counsel Bass interviewed Miller on numerous occasions from the beginning of t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n in A u g u s t o f 1 9 9 9 up u n t i l t h e t i m e o f trial. [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 3 2 , 4 1 , 4 5 , 4 6 . ] Johnson s t a t e d that the purpose of these meetings involved conducting 'continued preparation for trial.' [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 4 6 - 4 7 . ] "Johnson also interviewed Miller's family members s u c h as h i s f a t h e r , m o t h e r , a n d h i s s i s t e r s with the s p e c i f i c focus of uncovering general background information and f a c t s concerning his r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h h i s f a t h e r . [ M o t i o n f o r New T r i a l H e a r i n g , R. 2 1 - 2 2 . ] J o h n s o n met w i t h t h e f a m i l y on the day o f t h e s h o o t i n g s on A u g u s t 5, 1 9 9 9 , a n d spoke with h i s mother Barbara and h i s brother Richard in order to get family background i n f o r m a t i o n . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 3 8 ¬ 39.] Bass had a t h i r t y m i n u t e phone conversation with Barbara M i l l e r on A u g u s t 6, a n d h o u r long c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h L i s a M i l l e r , M i l l e r ' s s i s t e r on A u g u s t 29, and had d i s c u s s i o n s a g a i n w i t h B a r b a r a M i l l e r on O c t o b e r 24 a n d N o v e m b e r 8. [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 Rule 32 Hearing, R. 40, 42, 44, 45.] Johnson t e s t i f i e d that these meetings with M i l l e r ' s family w e r e p a r t o f an ' o n g o i n g e f f o r t ' to get h e l p f u l i n f o r m a t i o n and t h a t Bass would have s h a r e d this information with him. [February 2008 Rule 32 H e a r i n g , R. 4 1 , 4 3 - 4 4 . ] 106 CR-08-1413 " J o h n s o n h i m s e l f met w i t h B a r b a r a M i l l e r f o r a 90 m i n u t e c o n f e r e n c e on M a r c h 1, 2 0 0 0 , a n d also talked with Brian Miller, h i s c o u s i n , and Lisa C a r d e n , h i s s i s t e r . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 46, 1 6 3 , 165.] B a s e d on t h e s e i n t e r v i e w s , J o h n s o n t e s t i f i e d t h a t he l e a r n e d i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t M i l l e r ' s b a c k g r o u n d and u p b r i n g i n g . [ F e b r u a r y 2008 R u l e 32, R. 1 6 5 - 6 6 . ] A d d i t i o n a l l y , t r i a l c o u n s e l d i s c o v e r e d from the i n t e r v i e w s evidence of a f a m i l y h i s t o r y of mental i l l n e s s . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 80.] Johnson a l s o r e c a l l e d receiving information a b o u t M i l l e r ' s u p b r i n g i n g a n d b a c k g r o u n d as w e l l a s p o s i t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n about M i l l e r from h i s b r o t h e r Richard Miller. [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 159.] G i v e n t h a t t h e r e c o r d s o f b o t h t h e m o t i o n f o r new trial hearing and the Rule 32 e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g i n d i c a t e t h a t t r i a l c o u n s e l met w i t h M i l l e r and h i s f a m i l y numerous t i m e f o r t h e p u r p o s e of d e v e l o p i n g i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g h i s b a c k g r o u n d and u p b r i n g i n g and t h e r e f o r e d i r e c t l y r e f u t e s M i l l e r ' s a l l e g a t i o n , t h i s c l a i m i s d e n i e d . See G a d d y , 952 So. 2d 1161. "This Court a l s o denied M i l l e r ' s c l a i m because M i l l e r has f a i l e d t o meet h i s b u r d e n o f p r o o f o f demonstrating that h i s t r i a l counsel's performance was d e f i c i e n t u n d e r S t r i c k l a n d , 466 U.S. at 687., Ala. R. C r i m . P. 3 2 . 7 ( d ) . A s n o t e d a b o v e , e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d t h a t t r i a l c o u n s e l J o h n s o n a n d B a s s repeatedly interviewed Miller and h i s m o t h e r and spoke w i t h h i s f a t h e r , b r o t h e r and s i s t e r s f o r t h e purpose of discovering information relating to M i l l e r ' s u p b r i n g i n g and f a m i l y b a c k g r o u n d . [Motion f o r New T r i a l H e a r i n g , R. 2 1 - 2 2 ; F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 3 8 - 4 6 . ] M i l l e r f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t a n y evidence d u r i n g the e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g t h a t t r i a l c o u n s e l f a i l e d to ask a s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n r e g a r d i n g his u n s t a b l e c h i l d h o o d or h i s c h i l d h o o d h i s t o r y of abuse. Therefore, because the record i s silent, trial counsel's performance in regard to his investigation and i n t e r v i e w s of Miller and his f a m i l y i s p r e s u m e d t o be r e a s o n a b l e . See W i l l i a m s v . 107 CR-08-1413 H e a d , 185 F. 3 d 1 2 2 3 , 1228 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 9 ) ('Where the record is incomplete or unclear about [counsel's] a c t i o n s , we w i l l p r e s u m e t h a t he d i d w h a t he s h o u l d h a v e d o n e a n d t h a t he exercised reasonable p r o f e s s i o n a l judgment.'); Chandler v. S t a t e , 218 F. 3 d 1 3 0 5 , 1 3 1 5 n . 15 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) (En B a n c ) . " T r i a l c o u n s e l was n o t d e f i c i e n t i n t h e s c o p e o f family interviews conducted during h i s background information, despite M i l l e r ' s laundry l i s t of f a m i l y members he a l l e g e s s h o u l d h a v e b e e n i n t e r v i e w e d : h i s f a t h e r , Ivan M i l l e r , h i s s i s t e r s , L i s a Carden and Cheryl E l l i s o n , h i s brother, Richard M i l l e r , h i s h a l f - b r o t h e r , J e f f Carr, h i s niece, A l i c i a Sanford, h i s nephew, J a k e C o n n e l l , h i s c o u s i n , B r i a n M i l l e r , and h i s uncle, Perry Miller. [Amended R u l e 32 Petition, C. 2 7 7 - 7 8 . ] C o n t r a r y t o M i l l e r ' s claims, t r i a l c o u n s e l met w i t h a n d i n t e r v i e w e d , I v a n M i l l e r , Richard Miller, Lisa Carden, and B r i a n Miller. [ D i r e c t A p p e a l , M o t i o n f o r New T r i a l H e a r i n g , R. 2 1 ¬ 22; F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 1 5 9 , 1 6 3 , 165.] Neither J e f f Carr nor Perry M i l l e r testified during the e v i d e n t i a r y hearing; therefore, there i s no r e c o r d w h a t s o e v e r o f w h e t h e r t h e s e f a m i l y members c o u l d have p r o v i d e d any r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n . " M i l l e r has f a i l e d t o prove t h a t t r i a l counsel's investigation of h i s family members was not reasonable, nor has he demonstrated that a l l reasonably competent counsel would have also interviewed the a d d i t i o n a l f a m i l y members Miller c l a i m s s h o u l d have been i n t e r v i e w e d . "Regardless, trial counsel cannot be found deficient f o r f a i l i n g to interview the remaining f a m i l y members c o n c e r n i n g i n f o r m a t i o n on Miller's life: Cheryl Ellison, Alicia Sanford and Jake C o n n e l l . F i r s t , i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m C h e r y l E l l i s o n was ultimately obtained through her interview with 108 CR-08-1413 Miller's psychiatric e x p e r t Dr. S c o t t . [February 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 3 1 5 . ] A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e evidence presented during the e v i d e n t i a r y hearing demonstrates that E l l i s o n failed to provide any meaningful information. Although Cheryl Ellison s t a t e d t h a t s h e knew o f M i l l e r s i n c e h e was b o r n , s h e a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e d i d n o t g r o w up w i t h t h e i m m e d i a t e M i l l e r f a m i l y and s t a t e d t h a t she spent 'very l i t t l e ' time w i t h the M i l l e r f a m i l y throughout h e r c h i l d h o o d . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 501.] E l l i s o n ' s testimony during the e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g p r o v i d e d v i r t u a l l y no a d d i t i o n a l , r e l e v a n t information concerning Miller's background other t h a n g e n e r a l t e s t i m o n y t h a t I v a n M i l l e r was a b a d p e r s o n and i r r e l e v a n t t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g M i l l e r ' s brother, Ivan Ray Miller's death and funeral. [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 3 2 , R. 5 0 0 - 5 2 5 . ] "Furthermore, t r i a l c o u n s e l h a d no r e a s o n t o interview Miller's niece, A l i c i a S a n f o r d and h i s nephew, J a k e C o n n e l l . A l i c i a S a n f o r d t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e was 14 y e a r s o l d a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l a n d d i d not a t t e n d M i l l e r ' s t r i a l , n o r d i d she a t t e n d any f a m i l y m e e t i n g s w i t h t r i a l c o u n s e l . [ F e b r u a r y 2008 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 4 9 8 - 9 9 . ] N o t o n l y c o u l d t r i a l counsel not have been aware of whether Alicia S a n f o r d was a v a i l a b l e t o t e s t i f y , b u t i t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t a w i t n e s s 14 y e a r s o l d a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l could have provided any background information w h a t s o e v e r p e r t a i n i n g t o M i l l e r who was o v e r t w i c e h e r a g e . S i m i l a r l y , t r i a l c o u n s e l r e a s o n a b l y h a d no a b i l i t y t o be a w a r e o f J a k e C o n n e l l ' s a v a i l a b i l i t y as a w i t n e s s , n o r c o u l d C o n n e l l p r o v i d e any u s e f u l b a c k g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n . C o n n e l l was 18 y e a r s o l d a t t h e t i m e o f M i l l e r ' s t r i a l , d i d n o t s p e n d much t i m e g r o w i n g up w i t h M i l l e r , a n d d i d n o t a t t e n d M i l l e r ' s trial. [ F e b r u a r y 2008 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 5 8 4 - 8 5 . ] "Finally, the investigation into Miller's c h i l d h o o d b a c k g r o u n d and h i s t o r y o f abuse t h r o u g h the i n t e r v i e w s o f f a m i l y m e m b e r s was adequately 109 CR-08-1413 p e r f o r m e d b y D r . C h a r l e s S c o t t , t h e p s y c h i a t r i s t who testified during the penalty phase of Miller's t r i a l . S e e H a l l v . S t a t e , 979 S o . 2 d 1 2 5 , 163 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 7 ) ( ' I t i s n e i t h e r u n p r o f e s s i o n a l n o r unreasonable f o r a lawyer t o use surrogates to i n v e s t i g a t e and i n t e r v i e w p o t e n t i a l w i t n e s s e s rather t h a n d o i n g so p e r s o n a l l y ' ) ( r e f e r e n c i n g H a r r i s v. D u g g e r , 874 F . 2 d 7 5 6 , 762 & n. 8 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 8 9 ) ) . A l t h o u g h D r . S c o t t was n o t o r i g i n a l l y e n g a g e d b y t r i a l counsel f o r the express purpose of conducting a m i t i g a t i o n i n v e s t i g a t i o n , Johnson f e l t t h a t Dr. S c o t t d i d 'a p r e t t y t h o r o u g h j o b o f g e t t i n g f a m i l y history that he felt was relevant, employment h i s t o r y , a l l o f t h o s e t h a t y o u w a n t t o p r e s e n t some i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t o a j u r y . ' [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 1 8 8 , 2 2 2 . ] D u r i n g t h e p e n a l t y p h a s e o f the t r i a l , Dr. S c o t t c o n f i r m e d t h e importance o fh i s r o l e i n l e a r n i n g a s much a s he c o u l d a b o u t M i l l e r ' s social background, personal h i s t o r y , as w e l l as f a c t s o f M i l l e r ' s c a s e . [ R e c o r d o n D i r e c t A p p e a l , R. 1348.] "As p a r t o f h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , D r . S c o t t met with Miller over a period of three days and conducted extensive interviews and examinations. [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 3 1 4 . ] To c o n f i r m background i n f o r m a t i o n , Dr. S c o t t a l s o interviewed B a r b a r a M i l l e r , h i s b r o t h e r , R i c h a r d M i l l e r , andh i s sister Cheryl Ellison. [February 2008 Rule 32 H e a r i n g , R. 3 1 4 - 1 5 . ] A f t e r D r . S c o t t ' s i n v e s t i g a t i o n was c o m p l e t e d , J o h n s o n t h e n d i s c u s s e d w i t h D r . S c o t t the areas i n which Dr. S c o t t c o u l d p r o v i d e h e l p f u l m i t i g a t i o n testimony during the p e n a l t y phase of Miller's trial. [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 190, 2 5 3 - 5 4 . ] T h e r e f o r e , b e c a u s e t r i a l c o u n s e l , b o t h t h r o u g h h i s own i n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d t h r o u g h t h a t o f Dr. S c o t t , t h o r o u g h l y i n q u i r e d i n t o the background and h i s t o r y o f a b u s e i n M i l l e r ' s c h i l d h o o d , Miller has failed to meet h i s burden of proof of demonstrating that h i s t r i a l counsel's i n v e s t i g a t i o n was d e f i c i e n t a n d t h i s c l a i m i s d e n i e d . " 110 CR-08-1413 (C. 1 9 9 2 - 2 0 0 0 . ) the The circuit court's f i n d i n g s are supported by record. The circuit because the requisite court court also found that prejudice, denied relief Miller failed on to this claim establish the stating: "Even i f M i l l e r c o u l d have d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t h i s t r i a l c o u n s e l ' s i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f h i s b a c k g r o u n d was d e f i c i e n t , he c a n n o t p r o v e t h a t he was prejudiced because extensive testimony was nonetheless presented during the p e n a l t y phase of h i s trial r e g a r d i n g h i s u n s t a b l e c h i l d h o o d and t h e p h y s i c a l and e m o t i o n a l abuse M i l l e r s u f f e r e d . " (C. in 2000.) Miller's more d e t a i l , failure to prove p r e j u d i c e is discussed infra. (ii) As noted counsel gather have were above, ineffective multiple been Miller because, "important presented in also asserts he claims, the penalty gathering only and that his t r i a l counsel phase of trial did that the medical not could trial. petition, were i n e f f e c t i v e investigating Miller's 111 his counsel m i t i g a t i n g documents" H o w e v e r , i n h i s c l a i m i n h i s a m e n d e d R u l e 32 asserted that Miller for records. not (C. CR-08-1413 288-90.) That 8 i s the specific allegation the court addressed. The c i r c u i t court denied reasons. F i r s t the court found specificity requirements because M i l l e r counsel The Miller acquired Miller failed hearing should 32.6(b), o f what records to specific A l a . R. court t o meet also denied h i s burden Crim. P., that h i s t r i a l three unnamed evidence at the hospital records h i s (C. 2 0 0 2 . ) r e l i e f because, of proving c o u n s e l ' s p e r f o r m a n c e was d e f i c i e n t was f a i l e d t o meet t h e from present have i n v e s t i g a t e d . circuit failed of Rule have and evidentiary that Miller c l a i m f o rs e v e r a l made o n l y t h e v a g u e a l l e g a t i o n should hospitals counsel r e l i e f on t h i s p r e j u d i c e d by t h a t performance. i nthis that i t found, his trial r e g a r d , o r t h a t he Specifically, the court stated: "Although t r i a l counsel Johnson t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t p r e s e n t M i l l e r ' s m e d i c a l r e c o r d s d u r i n g t r i a l , M i l l e r f a i l e d t o e l i c i t any t e s t i m o n y d u r i n g the e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g from Johnson as t o w h e t h e r Johnson i n v e s t i g a t e d or attempted t o o b t a i n M i l l e r ' s A t a n o t h e r p l a c e i n h i s a m e n d e d R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n , M i l l e r d i d make t h e b a r e a s s e r t i o n t h a t h i s t r i a l c o u n s e l f a i l e d t o c o l l e c t and e v a l u a t e M i l l e r ' s employment, e d u c a t i o n a l , m e d i c a l records, and h i s f a m i l y ' s medical records. (C. 2 7 5 . ) 8 112 CR-08-1413 m e d i c a l r e c o r d s . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 h e a r i n g , R. 184.] Therefore, because the record is silent r e g a r d i n g t r i a l counsel's i n v e s t i g a t i o n of M i l l e r ' s m e d i c a l r e c o r d s , and b e c a u s e t r i a l c o u n s e l ' s c o n d u c t i s p r e s u m e d t o be r e a s o n a b l e , t h i s C o u r t s h o u l d a l s o presume that trial counsel's investigation of M i l l e r ' s m e d i c a l h i s t o r y was r e a s o n a b l e . C h a n d l e r v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 218 F. 3d 1 3 0 5 , 1315 n. 15 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2000)('An ambiguous or silent record is not sufficient to d i s p r o v e the s t r o n g and continuing presumption [because] "where the record is incomplete or u n c l e a r about [counsel's] actions, [ t h e c o u r t ] w i l l p r e s u m e t h a t he d i d w h a t he should have done, and that he exercised reasonable p r o f e s s i o n a l judgment."')" (C. 2003-04.) The circuit court found that Miller failed to t h e r e q u i s i t e p r e j u d i c e b e c a u s e , " [ t ] e s t i m o n y was Dr. S c o t t d u r i n g the p e n a l t y phase of t r i a l Miller r e c e i v e d as a c h i l d - - claims his t r i a l Dr. Scott." Miller's did not and was Miller own had injuries.' court's (C. 32 The expert, indication aware any failed 2004.) Rule have any not counsel of any overnight [February f i n d i n g s are the exact presented regarding Dr. Boyer, of the medical hospital 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 supported 113 by additionally noted that cause of M i l l e r ' s records stays as Hearing, the R. record. result to that she injuries indicating a now provide "'testified by injuries information Miller t o i n v e s t i g a t e and court establish that of his 739-40.]" The CR-08-1413 M i l l e r now his trial counsel mitigating records; records expands h i s l i s t should evidence (2) of (Miller's brief, circuit court include: family; showing at presented 80.) this did gathered in of his specifically Miller's readily later assertion available in this The in petition, address the trial that his t r i a l mitigating counsel evidence, However, these i n the context d i d not present which is discussed opinion. burden of p r o v i n g t h a t h i s t r i a l supported the gathered counsel's f a i l u r e to gather addressed which additional c i r c u i t court's conclusion that M i l l e r f a i l e d to investigating is manner amended Human experienced. c o u n s e l s h o u l d have p u r p o r t e d l y m i t i g a t i n g d o c u m e n t s was his of investigated for p o t e n t i a l mitigating evidence. the e f f e c t of M i l l e r ' s of mental-health Miller the for education Department poverty documents M i l l e r c l a i m s h i s t r i a l and (3) Because claim not Miller's (4) claims, investigated (1) and the and records; employment Miller's records Miller to Miller's Resources have o f d o c u m e n t s t h a t , he potential by the mitigating record. As 114 meet counsel's performance i n evidence this Court was has unreasonable stated: CR-08-1413 "'"[F]ailure to investigate possible m i t i g a t i n g f a c t o r s and f a i l u r e t o p r e s e n t mitigating evidence at s e n t e n c i n g can constitute ineffective assistance of c o u n s e l u n d e r t h e S i x t h Amendment." C o l e m a n [ v . M i t c h e l l ] , 244 F. 3 d [ 5 3 3 ] a t 5 4 5 [ ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) ] ; see a l s o R o m p i l l a v. B e a r d , 545 U.S. 3 7 4 , 1 2 5 S . C t . 2 4 5 6 , 162 L . E d . 2 d 360 ( 2 0 0 5 ) ; W i g g i n s v . S m i t h , 5 3 9 U.S. 5 1 0 , 123 S . C t . 2 5 2 7 , 1 5 6 L . E d . 2 d 4 7 1 ( 2 0 0 3 ) . Our c i r c u i t ' s p r e c e d e n t h a s distinguished between counsel's complete failure to conduct a m i t i g a t i o n i n v e s t i g a t i o n , where we are likely to find deficient performance, and counsel's failure to c o n d u c t an a d e q u a t e i n v e s t i g a t i o n where t h e presumption of reasonable performance i s more d i f f i c u l t t o o v e r c o m e : "'"[T]he cases where t h i s c o u r t has g r a n t e d t h e w r i t f o r f a i l u r e of counsel to investigate potential mitigating evidence have been limited to those situations in which defense c o u n s e l have t o t a l l y failed to c o n d u c t such an i n v e s t i g a t i o n . I n contrast, i f a habeas c l a i m does not involve a failure to investigate but, rather, petitioner's dissatisfaction with the degree of h i s attorney's i n v e s t i g a t i o n , the presumption of reasonableness imposed by Strickland will be hard to overcome. " ' C a m p b e l l v . C o y l e , 260 F . 3 d 5 3 1 , 552 ( 6 t h C i r . 2001) ( q u o t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) (emphasis a d d e d ) ; s e e a l s o M o o r e v . P a r k e r , 425 F . 3 d 250, 255 ( 6 t h C i r . 2005) . I n t h e p r e s e n t 115 CR-08-1413 case, defense counsel d i d not completely fail to conduct an investigation for mitigating evidence. Counsel spoke with Beuke's p a r e n t s p r i o r t o p e n a l t y phase of trial ( a l t h o u g h t h e r e i s some q u e s t i o n a s t o how much t i m e c o u n s e l s p e n t p r e p a r i n g Beuke's p a r e n t s t o t e s t i f y ) , and p r e s e n t e d his parents' testimony at the sentencing h e a r i n g . Defense counsel a l s o asked the probation department to conduct a p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n and a p s y c h i a t r i c evaluation. While these investigatory efforts fall f a r s h o r t o f an exhaustive s e a r c h , t h e y do n o t q u a l i f y a s a c o m p l e t e failure to investigate. See Martin v. M i t c h e l l , 280 F . 3 d 5 9 4 , 613 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) (finding that defense counsel did not c o m p l e t e l y f a i l t o i n v e s t i g a t e where t h e r e was "limited contact between defense counsel and family members," "counsel requested a presentence report," and counsel "elicited the testimony of [ p e t i t i o n e r ' s ] mother and grandmother"). Because Beuke's a t t o r n e y s d i d not e n t i r e l y abdicate their duty to investigate for mitigating evidence, we must closely evaluate whether they e x h i b i t e d s p e c i f i c d e f i c i e n c i e s t h a t were u n r e a s o n a b l e under prevailing p r o f e s s i o n a l standards. See D i c k e r s o n v . B a g l e y , 453 F . 3 d 6 9 0 , 701 ( 6 t h Cir. 2006).' " B e u k e v . H o u k , 537 F . 3 d 6 1 8 , 643 (6th C i r . 2008). '[A] p a r t i c u l a r d e c i s i o n n o t t o i n v e s t i g a t e m u s t be directly assessed for reasonableness i n a l l the c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a p p l y i n g heavy measure of deference to counsel's judgments.' Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 521-22. 'A d e f e n s e a t t o r n e y i s not required to investigate a l l leads B o l e n d e r v. S i n g l e t a r y , 16 F . 3 d 1 5 4 7 , 1557 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 4 ) . 'A l a w y e r can a l m o s t a l w a y s do s o m e t h i n g m o r e i n e v e r y c a s e . But 116 CR-08-1413 the C o n s t i t u t i o n r e q u i r e s a good d e a l l e s s than maximum p e r f o r m a n c e . ' A t k i n s v . S i n g l e t a r y , 965 F . 2 d 9 5 2 , 960 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 2 ) . 'The a t t o r n e y ' s d e c i s i o n n o t t o i n v e s t i g a t e must n o t be e v a l u a t e d w i t h t h e benefit of hindsight, but accorded a strong p r e s u m p t i o n o f r e a s o n a b l e n e s s . ' M i t c h e l l v . Kemp, 762 F . 2 d 8 8 6 , 8 8 9 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 8 5 ) . "'The r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f c o u n s e l ' s a c t i o n s may be determined or substantially influenced by the defendant's own statements or actions. Counsel's actions are usually based, quite properly, on informed s t r a t e g i c choices made b y t h e d e f e n d a n t a n d on i n f o r m a t i o n s u p p l i e d b y the defendant. In particular, what investigation decisions are reasonable d e p e n d s c r i t i c a l l y on s u c h i n f o r m a t i o n . ' " S t r i c k l a n d v. Washington, 4 6 6 U.S. a t 6 9 1 . 'The reasonableness of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n involves "not only t h e quantum of evidence already known t o c o u n s e l , b u t a l s o w h e t h e r t h e known e v i d e n c e w o u l d lead a reasonable attorney to investigate further."' St. Aubin v. Quarterman, 470 F . 3 d 1 0 9 6 , 1101 ( 5 t h Cir. 2006), quoting i n p a r t W i g g i n s , 5 3 9 U.S. a t 527 ." Ray, So. 3d a t This i s not a conducted counsel no difficult where Miller's i n v e s t i g a t i o n , o r where i n Wiggins information situation that v. alluded childhood Smith, to 539 trial U.S. 117 t o conduct counsel counsel, 510 the defendant's but failed trial like (2003), had troubled and a more thorough CR-08-1413 investigation. counsel's evidence Because M i l l e r performance was f a i l e d to prove in investigating unreasonable, Miller that his potential also failed mitigating to prove t h e manner i n w h i c h appellate counsel asserted this deficient. 791 Payne, So. 2d trial that claim was 401. b. Miller argues that his trial counsel r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e m i t i g a t i n g evidence the trial. conducted trial the Miller maintains proper investigation a counsel instability, exposed 99; his early life," " p o s i t i v e evidence his character." Miller's reply brief, Specifically, trial counsel's evidence, (Miller's Miller failure n e i t h e r the and to counsel jury about [he] was counsel could [him], h i s life, I I ( B ) ( 2 ) ( c ) ( i i ) , at 82¬ 29-34.) to that present nor the as a result sufficient jury brief, at 87-90); 118 of his mitigating learned of: e x t e n t o f t h e p h y s i c a l a n d e m o t i o n a l a b u s e i n f l i c t e d on by h i s f a t h e r ( M i l l e r ' s of background, which trial concerning contends judge present trial Miller's abuse brief, at his to inform the drug throughout have p r e s e n t e d or had into v i o l e n c e and to at the p e n a l t y phase that "would have been a b l e failed (1) the Miller (2) t h e p o v e r t y and CR-08-1413 r o o t l e s s n e s s M i l l e r e x p e r i e n c e d as 90-92); (3) the during his u n l a w f u l behavior to upbringing family's history Miller's (6) brief, at before the In were of m e n t a l abuse loving 95-98); shootings a related who, shoot resulting the his II(B)(2)(c)(iii), Miller argues at that Boyer mitigation evidence the resulting not In testimony "demonstrated that prejudice Trial to 119 at 93-95); immediately and mitigation conducted who jury what counsel support have " i n a way that caused his Counsel of [him] this Rule the (Miller's 32 type failed a could (Miller's of (5) (Miller's a have the both [him.] 93); trial retain co-workers." 99-104.) Miller 98-99). could understand the family contends that his did at exposed at behavior at i n f o r m a t i o n to to (4) brief, his investigation the Catherine with unusual claims, jurors three 92); (Miller's brief, they mitigating p r e s e n t e d the allow because Miller comprehensive would (Miller's vein, Miller ineffective expert, Miller's at (Miller's brief, relationship (7) (Miller's brief, w h i c h M i l l e r was (Miller's brief, good employment h i s t o r y Miller's a child to to brief, assertion, expert of expert present brief, Dr. at and 100.) CR-08-1413 Miller presented maintains the "reasonable probability" his of imposed the ineffective and The order on appeal, denying trial counsel the jury and/or t h a t he of would the court Thus, M i l l e r p r o p e r l y a r g u e d and court Miller from the death penalty. assistance circuit extensively his that death penalty appellate counsel trial had properly r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e m i t i g a t i n g evidence, recommended the have that counsel there not have would concludes, motion claim for a would have these contentions these claims. new prevailed. addressed not had supported this i n the is relief court's on in We quote order: " I n p a r a g r a p h s 238-64 o f h i s amended p e t i t i o n [C. 3 3 8 - 4 6 ] , M i l l e r c l a i m s t h a t h i s t r i a l counsel w e r e i n e f f e c t i v e i n p r e s e n t i n g a m i t i g a t i o n c a s e on M i l l e r ' s behalf. M i l l e r ' s claim contained numerous reasons in which he alleges trial counsel's mitigation presentation was ineffective. First, Miller claims that Dr. Scott's testimony was i n s u f f i c i e n t to present a m i t i g a t i o n case because Dr. S c o t t had n o t b e e n r e t a i n e d as a m i t i g a t i o n e x p e r t . [C. 338.] M i l l e r a l s o c l a i m s t h a t 'the j u r y n e v e r h e a r d a b o u t t h e e m o t i o n a l and p h y s i c a l t e r r o r t h a t Mr. M i l l e r ' s f a t h e r , I v a n , h a d i n f l i c t e d u p o n Mr. M i l l e r a n d h i s f a m i l y . ' [C. 339.] M i l l e r a l l e g e s that the jury never heard about his troubled childhood, i n c l u d i n g the extent of the family's p o v e r t y , t h e f a m i l y ' s f r e q u e n t r e l o c a t i o n s , and the unlawful behavior and d r u g a b u s e t h a t o c c u r r e d in t h e M i l l e r home. [C. 341.] M i l l e r also claims that his trial counsel were ineffective for not p r e s e n t i n g m i t i g a t i o n evidence through the f o l l o w i n g 120 its CR-08-1413 f a m i l y members: h i s m o t h e r , B a r b a r a , h i s s i b l i n g s , Richard, C h e r y l , and J e f f , h i s n i e c e , A l i c i a , his nephew, Jake, and his cousin Brian. [C. 343.] F i n a l l y , M i l l e r claims t h a t the j u r y never heard p o s i t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t h i s l i f e s u c h as t h e f a c t t h a t he w o r k e d t o p r o v i d e money f o r h i s f a m i l y and his g o o d e m p l o y m e n t h i s t o r y . [C. 3 4 3 - 4 4 . ] " T h i s C o u r t d e n i e s M i l l e r ' s c l a i m b e c a u s e he h a s f a i l e d t o meet h i s b u r d e n o f p r o o f of e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t t r i a l c o u n s e l ' s p e r f o r m a n c e was d e f i c i e n t u n d e r S t r i c k l a n d , 466 U.S. 687; A l a . R. C r i m . P. 3 2 . 7 ( d ) . The b a s i c t h r u s t o f M i l l e r ' s c l a i m i s t h a t h i s t r i a l counsel should h a v e d o n e s o m e t h i n g m o r e -- i . e . , t h a t more m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g h i s m e n t a l history, his personal background, and family background should have been p r e s e n t e d d u r i n g the p e n a l t y p h a s e . When a c l a i m i s r a i s e d t h a t trial counsel should have done s o m e t h i n g more, a court must f i r s t l o o k at what t r i a l c o u n s e l d i d . C h a n d l e r [v. U n i t e d S t a t e s ] , 218 F . 3 d [ 1 3 0 5 ] a t 1320 [(11th Cir. 2000)]. ('Although P e t i t i o n e r ' s c l a i m i s that his t r i a l c o u n s e l s h o u l d have done s o m e t h i n g more, we first l o o k at what the lawyer did i n fact.') M o r e o v e r , 'the mere f a c t t h a t o t h e r w i t n e s s e s m i g h t have been a v a i l a b l e or t h a t o t h e r t e s t i m o n y might h a v e b e e n e l i c i t e d f r o m t h o s e who t e s t i f i e d i s not a sufficient ground to prove ineffectiveness of c o u n s e l . ' I d . a t 1316 n. 20. "Johnson t e s t i f i e d t h a t he made a s t r a t e g i c d e c i s i o n t o f o c u s on t h e p e n a l t y p h a s e o f M i l l e r ' s t r i a l and t h a t h i s s p e c i f i c t h e o r y o f d e f e n s e was that M i l l e r s u f f e r e d from a d i m i n i s h e d capacity. [ D i r e c t A p p e a l , M o t i o n f o r New T r i a l H e a r i n g , R. 17, F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 219.] Accordingly, J o h n s o n p r e s e n t e d t h e t e s t i m o n y of Dr. Scott for t h i s p u r p o s e i n an e f f o r t t o e s t a b l i s h t h e e x i s t e n c e o f two s t a t u t o r y m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s : t h a t the c a p i t a l o f f e n s e was committed w h i l e the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or 121 CR-08-1413 e m o t i o n a l d i s t u r b a n c e u n d e r A l a . C o d e [ 1 9 7 5 , ] § 13A5-51(2) and t h a t t h e c a p a c i t y of t h e d e f e n d a n t t o appreciate the criminality of h i s conduct or to c o n f o r m h i s c o n d u c t to the r e q u i r e m e n t s of law was s u b s t a n t i a l l y i m p a i r e d u n d e r A l a . C o d e [ 1 9 7 5 ] § 13A5-51(6). [Record on Direct Appeal, R. 1343-91; F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 1 8 6 - 8 7 . ] J o h n s o n had o r i g i n a l l y r e t a i n e d Dr. S c o t t t o e v a l u a t e M i l l e r i n r e g a r d t o an i n s a n i t y p l e a ; h o w e v e r , a f t e r Dr. S c o t t i s s u e d h i s r e p o r t and t h e i n s a n i t y p l e a was dropped, Johnson discussed with Dr. Scott the p o s s i b i l i t y of p r e s e n t i n g the m e n t a l h e a l t h e v i d e n c e from Dr. Scott's evaluation in support of a m i t i g a t i o n c a s e . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 1 8 1 , 190, 253.] "At t r i a l , Dr. S c o t t p r o v i d e d t e s t i m o n y relating to M i l l e r ' s p s y c h o l o g i c a l b a c k g r o u n d as well as M i l l e r ' s v e r i s o n o f t h e e v e n t s on t h e d a y o f the shooting in support of a diminished capacity s t r a t e g y . Dr. S c o t t t e s t i f i e d t h a t M i l l e r reported that he believed people were watching him and t e a s i n g him a t work and t h a t t h e s e f e e l i n g s w e i g h e d on h i s m i n d . [ R e c o r d on D i r e c t A p p e a l , R. 1365-66, 1369.] Dr. Scott stated that Miller said the p r e s s u r e o f t h e s e t h o u g h t s k e p t b u i l d i n g up i n h i s m i n d and that the 'straw t h a t broke the camel's b a c k ' o c c u r r e d when he a r r i v e d a t w o r k a t F e r g u s o n E n t e r p r i s e s on A u g u s t 5, 1999. [ R e c o r d on Direct A p p e a l , R. 1 3 7 3 - 7 5 . ] D r . S c o t t a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t Miller reported experiencing 'tunnel vision' and t h a t M i l l e r had d i f f i c u l t y r e c a l l i n g the e v e n t s of t h e c r i m e . [ R e c o r d on D i r e c t A p p e a l , R. 1 3 7 5 , 1378.] B a s e d on t h i s e v i d e n c e , D r . S c o t t o p i n e d t h a t M i l l e r did have a mental illness at the time of the shootings, s p e c i f i c a l l y a delusional disorder, and that his ability to appreciate his conduct was s u b s t a n t i a l l y i m p a i r e d . [ R e c o r d on D i r e c t A p p e a l , R. 1389-91.] 122 CR-08-1413 "Although the presentation of testimony supporting a diminished capacity theory was Johnson's main strategy, contrary to Miller's claims, Johnson also presented an array of m i t i g a t i n g evidence concerning M i l l e r ' s background, f a m i l y h i s t o r y , and p o s i t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t h i s l i f e t h r o u g h t h e t e s t i m o n y of Dr. S c o t t . J o h n s o n d i d not h i r e Dr. Scott with the express purpose of investigating Miller's background, and in fact, Johnson and Dr. Scott agreed that he was not r e t a i n e d i n the c a p a c i t y of a m i t i g a t i o n expert. [February 2008 Rule 32 Hearing, R. 189, 311.] H o w e v e r , D r . S c o t t d i d s t a t e t h a t i t was important f o r h i m t o l e a r n as much as he c o u l d a b o u t M i l l e r ' s social background, educational background, and p e r s o n a l h i s t o r y d u r i n g h i s e v a l u a t i o n . [ R e c o r d on D i r e c t A p p e a l , R. 1 3 4 8 . ] J o h n s o n t e s t i f i e d D r . S c o t t d i d a thorough job of i n v e s t i g a t i n g r e l e v a n t f a m i l y h i s t o r y and b a c k g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n and c o u l d p e r f o r m the role of presenting this information he discovered to the jury. [February 2008 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 2 2 2 , 254.] "Contrary to Miller's claims, evidence concerning the physical and emotional abuse inflicted on him p e r s o n a l l y by Miller's father, I v a n , a n d on h i s f a m i l y was presented through the testimony of Dr. S c o t t . Dr. Scott t e s t i f i e d that I v a n was 'verbally abusive' to M i l l e r , that Ivan t o l d M i l l e r a t a y o u n g age he w o u l d n o t a m o u n t t o a n y t h i n g , a n d t h a t I v a n c a l l e d h i m a 'God damn s o n o f a b i t c h . ' [ R e c o r d on D i r e c t A p p e a l . R. 1 3 5 0 . ] D r . Scott also testified that Ivan was 'physically a b u s i v e ' t o M i l l e r and f r e q u e n t l y h i t M i l l e r w h i c h l e f t b r u i s e s on h i m . [ R e c o r d on D i r e c t A p p e a l . R. 1350.] Dr. Scott told the jury about specific o c c u r r e n c e s o f I v a n ' s a b u s e when I v a n t h r e a t e n e d to h a r m M i l l e r w i t h a l a r g e b u t c h e r k n i f e . [ R e c o r d on D i r e c t A p p e a l , R. 1 3 5 1 . ] D r . S c o t t a l s o n o t e d t h a t M i l l e r w i t n e s s e d I v a n ' s v e r b a l and p h y s i c a l a b u s e t o h i s m o t h e r , i n w h i c h I v a n c a l l e d h e r a 'whore' and 123 CR-08-1413 frequently A p p e a l , R. h i t her 1351.] 'very hard.' [Record on Direct "Contrary to M i l l e r ' s claim, evidence detailing Miller's i m p o v e r i s h e d c h i l d h o o d a n d u n s t a b l e home environment was presented through Dr. Scott's testimony. D r . S c o t t s t a t e d t h a t M i l l e r h a d 'an unusual early childhood' because his family frequently moved b e t w e e n Illinois, Alabama, and T e x a s a s many a s 7 t o 10 t i m e s . [ R e c o r d o n D i r e c t A p p e a l , 1349.] Dr. S c o t t t e s t i f i e d t h a t I v a n M i l l e r o f t e n q u i t or l o s t h i s j o b and t h a t t h e f a m i l y l i v e d 'on t h e e d g e o f p o v e r t y a l o t . ' [ R e c o r d o n D i r e c t A p p e a l , R. 1 3 4 9 . ] D r . S c o t t a l s o i n f o r m e d t h e j u r y that drug abuse was present during Miller's c h i l d h o o d , n o t i n g t h a t Ivan M i l l e r 'abused m a r i j u a n a q u i e t h e a v i l y ' and i n j e c t e d drugs i n t r a v e n o u s l y i n Miller's presence. [Record on D i r e c t A p p e a l , R. 1350.] Dr. S c o t t a l s o provided details of Ivan Miller's e c c e n t r i c behavior, t e s t i f y i n g t h a t Ivan t h o u g h t he h a d t h e p o w e r t o h e a l a n d t h a t h i s f a t h e r l a i d h a n d s on M i l l e r ' s b r o t h e r a n d w a l k e d a r o u n d t h e house spraying 'holy water.' [Record on Direct Appeal, R. 1350-51.] Additionally, Dr. Scott presented evidence of the family psychiatric history. [ R e c o r d on D i r e c t A p p e a l . R. 1 3 6 2 . ] D r . S c o t t noted Ivan M i l l e r ' s e r r a t i c b e h a v i o r and a l s o testified that Miller's grandfather had been institutionalized and that his brother was c o n s i d e r e d s l o w . [ R e c o r d o n D i r e c t A p p e a l , R. 1 3 6 2 ¬ 63.] " F i n a l l y , c o n t r a r y t o M i l l e r ' s c l a i m s , Dr. S c o t t provided p o s i t i v e evidence of M i l l e r ' s character. Dr. S c o t t noted t h a t M i l l e r had a g r e a t , loving r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h h i s mother, Barbara. [ R e c o r d on D i r e c t A p p e a l , R. 1 3 5 1 - 5 2 . ] D r . S c o t t t o l d t h e j u r y t h a t M i l l e r q u i t s c h o o l when he was i n t h e e l e v e n t h g r a d e s o t h a t he c o u l d w o r k a n d p r o v i d e money f o r h i s f a m i l y . [ R e c o r d on D i r e c t A p p e a l , R. 1 3 4 9 - 5 0 . ] Dr. S c o t t n o t e d t h a t M i l l e r d i d n o t have a h i s t o r y 124 CR-08-1413 of a g g r e s s i v e behavior and t h a t M i l l e r eventually graduated from high school. [Record on Direct A p p e a l , R. 1 3 5 2 - 5 3 . ] D r . S c o t t a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t M i l l e r d i d n o t have a h i s t o r y o f any s e r i o u s drug o r a l c o h o l a b u s e . [ R e c o r d on D i r e c t A p p e a l , R. 1 3 5 6 . ] Dr. Scott also provided the j u r y with d e t a i l s of M i l l e r ' s employment h i s t o r y , t e s t i f y i n g t h a t M i l l e r had s e v e r a l j o b s , u s u a l l y l e f t a j o b f o r a j o b t h a t p a i d more money, a n d k e p t t o h i m s e l f d u r i n g w o r k . [ R e c o r d on D i r e c t a p p e a l , R. 1 3 6 3 . ] I n t o t a l , t h e scope o f Dr. Scott's testimony was broad and provided many d e t a i l s of events throughout h i s l i f e t i m e and e x t e n s i v e l y c o v e r e d v a r i o u s areas o f his personal h i s t o r y . "Based on the record of trial and the evidentiary hearing, t h i s Court f i n d s that trial c o u n s e l made a s t r a t e g i c d e c i s i o n t o c o n c e n t r a t e on presenting evidence during the penalty p h a s e on Miller's diminished mental capacity that would s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o f two s t a t u t o r y mitigating circumstances. Trial counsel also presented a wealth of evidence concerning Miller's background and family history. Trial counsel's strategy was successful in that two jurors recommended a s e n t e n c e o f l i f e i m p r i s o n m e n t and t h e t r i a l court found the existence of three s t a t u t o r y mitigating circumstances. Miller, 913 S o . 2 d a t 1169. "Simply because Miller alleges that more m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e c o u l d have been p r e s e n t e d does not demonstrate that his trial counsel was i n e f f e c t i v e . T r i a l c o u n s e l ' s d e c i s i o n was reasonable and strategic, and t h i s Court w i l l not 'secondg u e s s ' i t . S e e , e . g . , C r a w f o r d v . H e a d , 311 F. 3 d 1288, 1312 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2002) ( ' T h i s c o u r t a g r e e s t h a t testimony from a m e n t a l h e a l t h e x p e r t . . . w o u l d have been admissible and might be considered t o be m i t i g a t i n g . However, t r i a l c o u n s e l chose t o p u r s u e a s t r a t e g y o f f o c u s i n g t h e j u r y ' s a t t e n t i o n on t h e 125 CR-08-1413 i m p a c t o f a d e a t h s e n t e n c e on p e t i t i o n e r ' s f a m i l y . T h i s c o u r t w i l l not second guess t r i a l counsel's d e l i b e r a t e c h o i c e . ' ) ; B o y d v . S t a t e , 746 So. 2d 3 6 4 , 398 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) ( ' T r i a l Counsel stated t h a t t h e d e f e n s e s t r a t e g y was t o h u m a n i z e B o y d f o r t h e j u r y ... [W]e do n o t f i n d c o u n s e l ' s e f f o r t s t o be i n e f f e c t i v e . ' ) "This Court a l s o f i n d s t h a t the t r i a l counsel had t a c t i c a l r e a s o n s f o r not p r e s e n t i n g e v i d e n c e or w i t n e s s e s w h i c h M i l l e r now a l l e g e s s h o u l d h a v e b e e n presented d u r i n g t h e p e n a l t y p h a s e . See, Payne .v S t a t e , 791 So. 2 d 3 8 3 , 404 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1999) ('When a d e c i s i o n t o n o t p u t on c e r t a i n m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e i s b a s e d on a ' s t r a t e g i c c h o i c e , ' courts have always found not ineffective performance.') Miller claims that a host of family members, p a r t i c u l a r l y h i s mother, Barbara, s h o u l d have been p r e s e n t e d as w i t n e s s e s d u r i n g t h e p e n a l t y p h a s e o f trial. "However, b o t h t r i a l c o u n s e l t e s t i f i e d d u r i n g the evidentiary hearing that they had specific, s t r a t e g i c reasons f o r not p r e s e n t i n g Barbara Miller as a w i t n e s s . J o h n s o n t e s t i f i e d t h a t he t a l k e d w i t h Barbara M i l l e r i n p r e p a r a t i o n f o r the p e n a l t y phase, c o n s i d e r e d c a l l i n g h e r as a w i t n e s s , a n d discussed this p o s s i b i l i t y with cocounsel Ronnie Blackwood. [February 2008 Rule 32 Hearing, R. 158, 229.] Johnson e x p l a i n e d t h a t h i s r e a s o n f o r not calling B a r b a r a as a w i t n e s s was t h a t he f e l t s h e w o u l d n o t be e f f e c t i v e as a w i t n e s s : "'I ... spent enough time with Alan's m o t h e r t o be a b l e t o d r a w some c o n c l u s i o n s ... a b o u t how e f f e c t i v e s h e m i g h t be in t h a t c a p a c i t y ... I was c o n c e r n e d t h a t w i t h A l a n ' s m o t h e r [ ' s ] demeanor t h a t i t might d i m i n i s h t h a t n a t u r a l sympathy f o r a mother because I found her ... t o be somewhat 126 CR-08-1413 emotionally detached we w e r e i n . ' "[February Rule 32 from the Hearing, R. circumstances 177-78; 230-31.] "Blackwood confirmed that trial counsel d i s c u s s e d the p o s s i b i l i t y of p u t t i n g Barbara M i l l e r on t h e s t a n d . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 8 6 3 - 64.] B l a c k w o o d t e s t i f i e d he s p o k e w i t h B a r b a r a M i l l e r a b o u t t e s t i f y i n g a n d t h a t he t a l k e d w i t h h e r a b o u t what she m i g h t t e s t i f y t o i n r e g a r d t o s a v i n g Miller's life i f called. [ F e b r u a r y 2008 R u l e 32 Hearing, R. 864.] During this conversation, B l a c k w o o d t e s t i f i e d t h a t B a r b a r a M i l l e r was 'very matter of fact' and also uttered a racially d e r o g a t o r y w o r d . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 8 6 4 - 65.] Blackwood stated that Barbara Miller's demeanor and h e r use o f t h i s l a n g u a g e c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e s t r a t e g i c d e c i s i o n t o n o t c a l l h e r as a w i t n e s s . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 865.] "Johnson p r o v i d e d another reason f o r not c a l l i n g B a r b a r a M i l l e r as a w i t n e s s s t a t i n g t h a t ' I d i d n ' t know t h a t s h e h a d a n y b a c k g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t m i g h t be p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t t h a t w a s n ' t a l r e a d y p r e s e n t e d by Dr. S c o t t . ' [ F e b r u a r y 2008 R u l e 32 Hearing, R. 178.] Furthermore, Johnson testified t h a t he d e c i d e d d u r i n g t h e p e n a l t y p h a s e t h a t t h e r e w e r e n o t any o t h e r members o f M i l l e r ' s f a m i l y whose testimony c o u l d h a v e made an impact during the p e n a l t y p h a s e . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 245.] Moreover, Johnson c o u l d not have even been a w a r e o f two of the f a m i l y w i t n e s s e s M i l l e r now c l a i m s s h o u l d h a v e b e e n c a l l e d as w i t n e s s e s d u r i n g the p e n a l t y phase. M i l l e r ' s nephew, J a k e C o n n e l l , and h i s n i e c e , A l i c i a S a n f o r d , b o t h t e s t i f i e d d u r i n g the evidentiary hearing that neither of them attended Miller's trial. [February 2008 R u l e 32 h e a r i n g , R. 4 9 8 , 5 8 5 . ] T r i a l c o u n s e l had specific, s t r a t e g i c r e a s o n s f o r c a l l i n g and n o t c a l l i n g the 127 CR-08-1413 witnesses they d i d d u r i n g the p e n a l t y phase and M i l l e r has f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t r i a l c o u n s e l ' s c h o i c e s were d e f i c i e n t . M i l l e r has n o t p r o v e d t h a t no r e a s o n a b l y c o m p e t e n t a t t o r n e y w o u l d h a v e p r o c e e d d u r i n g t h e p e n a l t y phase i n t h e manner i n which M i l l e r ' s t r i a l counsel did. " F i n a l l y , M i l l e r has f a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t h i s t r i a l c o u n s e l were d e f i c i e n t f o r not r e t a i n i n g and p r e s e n t i n g t h e t e s t i m o n y o f a m i t i g a t i o n e x p e r t . As n o t e d a b o v e , Dr. S c o t t a d e q u a t e l y p r e s e n t e d an a b u n d a n t amount o f m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e . Furthermore, Miller has failed to present any evidence that establishes a reasonably competent attorney p r a c t i c i n g at the time of M i l l e r ' s t r i a l would have r e t a i n e d and p r e s e n t e d a m i t i g a t i o n e x p e r t . With over twenty-five years of experience litigating c r i m i n a l c a s e s and p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n s e v e r a l c a p i t a l murder t r i a l s before M i l l e r ' s , Johnson testified t h a t he h a d never retained a mitigation expert. [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 2 1 0 , 254.] Blackwood also t e s t i f i e d that i n h i s experience a s a c r i m i n a l d e f e n s e a t t o r n e y , he h a d n e v e r hired a m i t i g a t i o n e x p e r t . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 868-69.] Accordingly, Miller has failed to e s t a b l i s h t h a t h i s t r i a l c o u n s e l were d e f i c i e n t i n t h i s r e g a r d . F u r t h e r m o r e , M i l l e r has f a i l e d t o meet h i s burden of p r o o f of d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t h i s t r i a l c o u n s e l ' s p e n a l t y p h a s e s t r a t e g y and performance were u n r e a s o n a b l e and deficient. Therefore this claim i s denied." (C. 2073-85.) The because, circuit the court court found, also denied Miller 128 relief failed on this to e s t a b l i s h claim that he CR-08-1413 was prejudiced performance. by his trial counsel's penalty-phase The c o u r t s t a t e d : "Even i f M i l l e r had d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t h i s t r i a l c o u n s e l were d e f i c i e n t f o r n o t p r e s e n t i n g s u f f i c i e n t m i t i g a t i o n evidence d u r i n g the p e n a l t y phase, M i l l e r has f a i l e d to e s t a b l i s h a reasonable probability t h a t t h e outcome o f h i s p r o c e e d i n g s w o u l d have been d i f f e r e n t had such i n f o r m a t i o n been p r e s e n t e d . " M i l l e r h a s f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t he was p r e j u d i c e d by t r i a l c o u n s e l ' s d e c i s i o n t o not r e t a i n and p r e s e n t t h e t e s t i m o n y o f a m i t i g a t i o n e x p e r t . As noted above, Dr. S c o t t p r e s e n t e d thorough testimony during the penalty phase detailing Miller's b a c k g r o u n d a n d f a m i l y h i s t o r y a n d a l s o f o c u s e d much of h i s t e s t i m o n y on p r e s e n t i n g e v i d e n c e o f M i l l e r ' s mental h e a l t h problems. [ R e c o r d o n D i r e c t A p p e a l , R. 1343-91.] S i m i l a r t o Dr. S c o t t , Dr. C a t h e r i n e Boyer t e s t i f i e d during the e v i d e n t i a r y hearing i n regard to what t y p e o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n a m i t i g a t i o n expert would conduct. [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 592-93.] "Dr. B o y e r a l s o s t a t e d t h a t , l i k e Dr. S c o t t , she met Miller over a period of three occasions. [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 5 9 8 . ] H o w e v e r , Dr. B o y e r ' s t e s t i m o n y d u r i n g t h e e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g c o v e r e d e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same t o p i c s a n d a r e a s w h i c h Dr. S c o t t p r e s e n t e d d u r i n g t h e p e n a l t y p h a s e . Dr. Boyer t e s t i f i e d concerning M i l l e r ' s f a m i l y h i s t o r y of m e n t a l i l l n e s s , t h a t h i s f a m i l y l i v e d i n p o v e r t y , t h a t M i l l e r had a good employment h i s t o r y , t h a t Ivan was p h y s i c a l l y a b u s e , a n d t h a t M i l l e r h a d a g o o d r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h h i s mother and s i b l i n g s . [February 2008 Rule 32 Hearing, R. 643-75.] Additional e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g M i l l e r ' s background and f a m i l y h i s t o r y p r o v i d e d b y D r . B o y e r was s i m p l y c u m u l a t i v e of t h e t e s t i m o n y p r o v i d e d by Dr. S c o t t d u r i n g t h e penalty phase. However, 'unpresented cumulative 129 CR-08-1413 testimony does not establish that counsel was ineffective.' M c N a b b v . S t a t e , 991 So. 2d 3 1 3 , 322 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2007 ) ; see a l s o Dobyne v. S t a t e , 805 So. 2d 733, 755 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000) (cumulative evidence would not have affected a p p e l l a n t ' s sentence). Therefore, t h i s Court finds t h a t M i l l e r was not p r e j u d i c e d by t r i a l counsel's f a i l u r e to r e t a i n a m i t i g a t i o n expert. " S i m i l a r l y , t h i s C o u r t f i n d s t h a t M i l l e r was n o t p r e j u d i c e d by h i s t r i a l c o u n s e l ' s f a i l u r e t o p r e s e n t more d e t a i l s b o t h o f t h e e x t e n t o f p h y s i c a l a b u s e from h i s f a t h e r , Ivan, and of the poverty and unstable environment in which Miller lived. Testimony r e g a r d i n g the e x t e n s i v e l e v e l of p h y s i c a l and e m o t i o n a l a b u s e d i r e c t e d t o w a r d M i l l e r as w e l l as the extreme level of poverty of Miller's childhood home was presented during the trial. [ R e c o r d on D i r e c t A p p e a l , R. 1 3 4 9 - 5 2 . ] M i l l e r has failed to present any further significant and s p e c i f i c f a c t s other than cumulative evidence t h a t s i m p l y e x p o u n d s on g e n e r a l e x a m p l e s o f I v a n M i l l e r ' s abuse and t h e M i l l e r f a m i l y p o v e r t y . Such c u m u l a t i v e testimony does not demonstrate that M i l l e r was prejudiced by the presentation of testimony concerning the level of abuse and poverty in M i l l e r ' s c h i l d h o o d . See M c N a b b , 991 So. 2 d a t 3 2 2 , D o b y n e , 805 So. 2 d a t 7 5 5 . "The record indicates that M i l l e r failed to present any further significant evidence of c h i l d h o o d abuse through the t e s t i m o n y of h i s f a m i l y members d u r i n g t h e e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g . H i s m o t h e r , Barbara Miller, generally testified that Ivan ignored M i l l e r , called him names, and physically abused M i l l e r . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 402-11.] However, she d i d n o t p r o v i d e t e s t i m o n y o f any s p e c i f i c i n c i d e n t s of abuse or i n j u r i e s as a result of abuse. M i l l e r ' s sister, Cheryl Ellison p r o v i d e d m i n i m a l t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g Ivan's abuse of M i l l e r , a d m i t t i n g s h e d i d n o t g r o w up i n t h e same 130 CR-08-1413 h o u s e a s M i l l e r . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 501.] M i l l e r ' s b r o t h e r R i c h a r d a l s o p r o v i d e d n o t h i n g but g e n e r a l statements Ivan would ' [ s ] l a p [Miller], k i c k him, sometimes punch him.' [ F e b r u a r y 2008 R u l e 3 2 , R. 54 6.] R e g a r d l e s s , e v e n i f t h e f a m i l y c o u l d have p r o v i d e d s p e c i f i c f a c t s , s i m p l y the f a c t t h a t Miller's f a m i l y members c o u l d h a v e p r o v i d e d more d e t a i l s of the e x t e n t of the abuse M i l l e r s u f f e r e d or of h i s c h i l d h o o d p o v e r t y does not establish ineffective a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l . See Payne v. A l l e n , 539 F . 3 d 1297, 1317 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) ('The mere fact that the f a m i l y members could have p r e s e n t e d more t h o r o u g h and g r a p h i c d e t a i l a b o u t t h e p h y s i c a l abuse Payne s u f f e r e d and w i t n e s s e d and h i s early substance abuse does not render counsel's performance i n e f f e c t i v e . ' ) "Moreover, had counsel presented evidence of M i l l e r ' s c h i l d h o o d p o v e r t y and a b u s e , i t w o u l d n o t have altered the balance of mitigation and a g g r a v a t i o n u n d e r S t r i c k l a n d . M i l l e r was i n h i s m i d t h i r t i e s when he c o m m i t t e d t h e m u r d e r s . [ R e c o r d on D i r e c t A p p e a l , C. 79.] I t i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t evidence concerning a middle aged murderer's c h i l d h o o d p o v e r t y , abuse and b a c k g r o u n d w o u l d have been e n t i t l e d t o l i t t l e , i f any, m i t i g a t i n g w e i g h t . See C a l l a h a n v. C a m p b e l l , 427 F. 3d 8 9 7 , 937-38 (11th C i r . 2005) (value of evidence regarding childhood abuse 'minimal' where defendant was t h i r t y - f i v e when he c o m m i t t e d c r i m e ) ; G i l r e a t h v . H e a d , 234 F. 3d 5 4 7 , 551 n 10 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2000 ) ( p e t i t i o n e r n o t p r e j u d i c e d when h i s a t t o r n e y f a i l e d to present evidence concerning his abusive and d i f f i c u l t c h i l d h o o d w h e r e p e t i t i o n e r was f o r t y y e a r s old when he committed the offense); Mills v. Singletary, 63 F.3d 999, 1025 (11th Cir. 1 9 9 5 ) ( p e t i t i o n e r not denied e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of counsel because counsel f a i l e d to present evidence concerning abusive childhood where petitioner t w e n t y - s i x y e a r s o l d ) ; B o l e n d e r v . S i n g l e t a r y , 16 F. 3d 1 5 4 7 , 1561 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1994) (petitioner twentyseven years old when committed offense). 131 CR-08-1413 A c c o r d i n g l y , t h i s Court f i n d s t h a t M i l l e r has to e s t a b l i s h p r e j u d i c e u n d e r S t r i c k l a n d . failed " M i l l e r h a s a l s o f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t he was p r e j u d i c e d by h i s t r i a l c o u n s e l ' s d e c i s i o n not t o present additional evidence of M i l l e r ' s positive character through the testimony of h i s f a m i l y members d u r i n g t h e p e n a l t y p h a s e . T r i a l c o u n s e l was not required to present mitigating character e v i d e n c e as a l l d u r i n g t h e p e n a l t y p h a s e . See Gaddy v . S t a t e , 952 S o . 2 d 1 1 4 9 , 1 1 7 0 - 7 1 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ) . However, as n o t e d above, t r i a l c o u n s e l d i d present p o s i t i v e evidence of M i l l e r ' s l i f e through the testimony o f Dr. S c o t t . [Record on Direct Appeal, R. 1 3 4 9 - 6 3 . ] The t e s t i m o n y of Miller's f a m i l y members d u r i n g t h e e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g was simply cumulative of the p o s i t i v e evidence presented by Dr. S c o t t d u r i n g t h e p e n a l t y p h a s e . "Barbara Miller essentially offered no s i g n i f i c a n t , p o s i t i v e d e t a i l s of M i l l e r ' s character d u r i n g the e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g other than the f a c t t h a t he h e l p e d p a y f o r h i s y o u n g e r b r o t h e r Ivan R a y ' s f u n e r a l e x p e n s e s a n d t h a t he c a r e d f o r h i s f a m i l y a n d was q u i e t a n d h a r d w o r k i n g . [February 2008 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 4 2 4 . ] M i l l e r ' s uncle, George Carr, provided no n o t e w o r t h y details of Miller's life a n d e v e n a d m i t t e d t h a t he was n o t a r o u n d M i l l e r t h a t much a s a c h i l d . [ F e b r u a r y 2008 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R, 4 6 2 . ] M i l l e r ' s s i s t e r , Cheryl Ellison, gave minimal testimony concerning h i s p o s i t i v e c h a r a c t e r , o n l y s t a t i n g t h a t M i l e r was l i k e a b r o t h e r t o h e r s o n , J a k e . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 Hearing, R. 505.] Miller's brother, Richard, e s s e n t i a l l y d i d n o t p r o v i d e any p o s i t i v e c h a r a c t e r e v i d e n c e a t a l l d u r i n g t h e e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g . The p o s i t i v e character evidence presented through the testimony of M i l l e r ' s f a m i l y members d u r i n g t h e evidentiary h e a r i n g was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t a n d was merely cumulative to the p o s i t i v e evidence of M i l l e r ' s l i f e t h a t was p r e s e n t e d d u r i n g t h e p e n a l t y 132 CR-08-1413 phase. So. 2d See M c N a b b , at 755. 991 So. 2d at 322 ; Dobyne, 805 "Miller has a l s o f a i l e d t o show how he was prejudiced by the failure to p r e s e n t additional mental h e a l t h e v i d e n c e d u r i n g the p e n a l t y phase i n the form of Dr. Boyer's diagnosis that Miller suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 714.] Dr. Scott presented testimony that Miller suffered from a m e n t a l i l l n e s s and t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o u n d t h a t M i l l e r was u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f e x t r e m e m e n t a l d i s t r e s s and t h a t t h e c a p a c i t y t o a p p r e c i a t e t h e criminality o f h i s c o n d u c t was s u b s t a n t i a l l y impaired. Miller, 913 So. 2d at 1169. Therefore, the mitigating c i r c u m s t a n c e s p e r t a i n i n g to M i l l e r ' s mental h e a l t h were found to exist by the trial court and therefore, the presentation of a d d i t i o n a l mental h e a l t h e v i d e n c e w o u l d n o t h a v e p r o v e n any a d d i t i o n a l statutory mitigating circumstances. "Furthermore, the e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d d u r i n g the evidentiary hearing casts serious doubt on the o p i n i o n o f Dr. B o y e r t h a t M i l l e r s u f f e r e d from a post-traumatic s t r e s s d i s o r d e r ('PTSD') a t t h e t i m e o f t h e o f f e n s e . Dr. B o y e r s t a t e d t h a t t h e p r i n c i p l e sources of i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t l e d to her conclude t h a t Miller suffered f r o m PTSD w e r e t h a t Miller was exposed to routine abuse, that Miller routinely zoned out, t h a t M i l l e r had certain elevated MMPI [Minnesota Multiphase P e r s o n a l i t y Inventory] s c a l e s , and t h a t M i l l e r had i n i t i a l d i f f i c u l t y r e m e m b e r i n g the events of the s h o o t i n g s . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 7 1 4 - 1 6 . ] "On c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , Dr. B o y e r a g r e e d t h a t t h e Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental D i s o r d e r s , F o u r t h E d i t i o n , T e x t R e v i s i o n (DSM-IV-TR) i s an a u t h o r i t a t i v e t e x t i n t h e f i e l d o f p s y c h i a t r y , a n d s h e e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e DSM-IV-TR i s a g u i d e l i n e 133 CR-08-1413 f o r m e n t a l h e a l t h p r o f e s s i o n a l s . [ F e b r u a r y 2008 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 730-31.] Dr. B o y e r agreed that a d i a g n o s i s o f PTSD m u s t h a v e an e x t r e m e t r a u m a t i c s t r e s s o r as o p p o s e d t o a g e n e r i c t r a u m a . [February 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 733.] Specifically, Dr. B o y e r n o t e d t h a t w i t h r e g a r d t o PTSD, t h e DSM-IV-TR p r o v i d e s , as f o l l o w s : "'The e s s e n t i a l f e a t u r e of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder i s the development of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c symptoms f o l l o w i n g e x p o s u r e t o an e x t r e m e t r a u m a t i c s t r e s s o r i n v o l v i n g d i r e c t p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e o f an e v e n t t h a t involves actual or threatened death or s e r i o u s i n j u r y , or o t h e r t h r e a t t o one's p h y s i c a l i n t e g r i t y ; o r w i t n e s s i n g an e v e n t that i n v o l v e s death, i n j u r y , or a t h r e a t to the p h y s i c a l i n t e g r i t y of another person.' "[February 2008 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 733.] With r e g a r d to 'traumas' t h a t are e x p e r i e n c e d d i r e c t l y , Dr. Boyer noted that the DSM-IV-TR p r o v i d e s as follows: "Traumatic events that are experienced d i r e c t l y i n c l u d e , but are not l i m i t e d t o , m i l i t a r y combat, v i o l e n t p e r s o n a l a s s a u l t (sexual assault, p h y s i c a l attack, robbery, mugging), being kidnapped, being taken hostage, terrorist attack, torture, i n c a r c e r a t i o n as a p r i s o n e r o f war o r i n a concentration camp, natural or manmade d i s a s t e r s , severe automobile a c c i d e n t s , or being diagnosed with a life-threatening illness.' "[February Diagnostic 2008 and R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. Statistical Manual 134 733-34] See of Mental CR-08-1413 Disorders, 463-464. Fourth Edition, Text Revision, at pp. "However, Dr. B o y e r n o t e d t h a t M i l l e r had n e v e r e x p e r i e n c e d m i l i t a r y combat, a k i d n a p p i n g , a s e x u a l a s s a u l t , been t a k e n h o s t a g e , been a p r i s o n e r of war, or been i n v o l v e d i n a t e r r o r i s t attack, natural d i s a s t e r or severe automobile accident. [February 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 7 3 4 . ] D r . B o y e r a l s o n o t e d t h a t M i l l e r h a d n e v e r w a t c h e d s o m e o n e be seriously i n j u r e d or k i l l e d , b e f o r e the s h o o t i n g s took p l a c e . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 7 3 6 . ] Dr. B o y e r admitted t h a t none of M i l l e r ' s hospital records indicated that his injuries came from specific i n c i d e n t s o f abuse and d i d n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t M i l l e r e v e r r e c e i v e d any s e r i o u s g u n s h o t o r k n i f e wounds. [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 740.] "Dr. B o y e r s t a t e d t h a t Dr. M c C l a r e n d i d not f i n d t h a t M i l l e r s u f f e r e d from a d i s s o c i a t i v e d i s o r d e r s u c h a s PTSD. [ F i r s t R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 7 4 4 . ] Dr. Boyer a l s o noted t h a t no other professional had d i a g n o s e d M i l l e r w i t h PTSD. [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 7 5 0 . ] I n f a c t , none o f t h e o t h e r f o u r d o c t o r s who e x a m i n e d M i l l e r i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h h i s trial or e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g determined that he s u f f e r e d f r o m PTSD. D r . B o y e r a l s o f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e any s p e c i f i c e x a m p l e s f r o m t h e t e s t i m o n y p r e s e n t e d during the evidentiary hearing of Miller ree x p e r i e n c i n g b a d e x p e r i e n c e s . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 7 4 9 - 5 0 . ] "Dr. Harry McClaren testified during the e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g t h a t t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e to i n d i c a t e t h a t M i l l e r was r e l i v i n g a n y t h i n g at the t i m e o f t h e m u r d e r s . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 7 8 7 . ] D r . M c C l a r e n a l s o s t a t e d t h a t he o r i g i n a l l y was o f t h e o p i n i o n t h a t M i l l e r ' s s e l f - r e p o r t t h a t he had d i f f i c u l t y remembering e v e n t s of the s h o o t i n g s was o f q u e s t i o n a b l e v e r a c i t y . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 135 CR-08-1413 H e a r i n g , R. 7 7 5 . ] D r . M c C l a r e n l a t e r s t a t e d t h a t i t was unusual for someone with true amnesia to remember c e r t a i n e v e n t s i n q u e s t i o n months l a t e r . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 8 5 2 . ] Finally, D r . M c C l a r e n t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was o f t h e o p i n i o n t h a t M i l l e r was n o t s u f f e r i n g f r o m PTSD. [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 7 8 7 - 8 8 . ] The c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e l a c k o f a p r e v i o u s d i a g n o s i s o f PTSD f r o m any m e n t a l h e a l t h p r o f e s s i o n a l who e x a m i n e d M i l l e r , D r . M c l a r e n ' s o p i n i o n t h a t M i l l e r does not s u f f e r from PTSD, a n d t h e d i s s i m i l a r i t y b e t w e e n t h e e x a m p l e s o f traumatic events contained in the DSM-IV-TR a s s o c i a t e d w i t h PTSD when c o m p a r e d t o t h e facts presented d u r i n g the e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g r e g a r d i n g M i l l e r ' s l i f e d i s c r e d i t s Dr. B o y e r ' s o p i n i o n t h a t Miller s u f f e r s f r o m PTSD. R e g a r d l e s s , t h i s Court f i n d s t h a t t h e r e i s no r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f any e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g M i l l e r ' s a l l e g e d d i a g n o s i s o f PTSD w o u l d h a v e a l t e r e d the j u r y ' s recommendation of a death sentence of the trial court's finding that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s . " F i n a l l y , i n regard to t h i s e n t i r e claim, M i l l e r has n o t shown a r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t y that the result of the penalty phase would have been d i f f e r e n t had a d d i t i o n a l m i t i g a t i o n e v i d e n c e been p r e s e n t e d b a s e d on t h e b r u t a l n a t u r e o f t h e c r i m e , the overwhelming and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e o f g u i l t , and t h e s t r e n g t h o f t h e a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t t h i s m u r d e r was h e i n o u s , a t r o c i o u s , a n d c r u e l . See P a y n e , 539 F . 3 d a t 1 3 1 8 . M i l l e r r e p e a t e d l y and h o r r i f i c a l l y s h o t a n d k i l l e d t h r e e p e o p l e . The C o u r t of C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s f o u n d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e o f g u i l t was 'overwhelming,' especially i n regard to the multiple eyewitnesses identifying Miller as the shooter. Miller, 913 So. 2d at 1162. In this p a r t i c u l a r c a s e , t h e r e i s no r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t a d d i t i o n a l m i t i g a t i o n t e s t i m o n y about M i l l e r ' s background or h i s mental h e a l t h problems would have a l t e r e d t h e b a l a n c e o f a g g r a v a t i n g and mitigating c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n t h i s c a s e . See P a y n e , 539 F. 3d a t 136 CR-08-1413 1318 ('Some m o r e d e t a i l e d m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e a b o u t P a y n e ' s c h i l d h o o d , f a m i l y b a c k g r o u n d , and substance abuse would not have negated the a g g r a v a t i n g n a t u r e o f t h i s a b h o r r e n t murder p r o v e n b e y o n d a l l doubt by the State.') Therefore, Miller has failed to e s t a b l i s h t h a t he was p r e j u d i c e d u n d e r Strickland and a c c o r d i n g l y , t h i s c l a i m i s d e n i e d . " (C. 2085-97.) The and law. counsel circuit As the c i r c u i t failed essentially court's a more m i t i g a t i n g to f i n d i n g s are court stated, M i l l e r ' s adequately claim supported that evidence. present his as should we have the evidence have is presented stated: "'[W]e "must recognize that trial counsel i s afforded broad authority in d e t e r m i n i n g w h a t e v i d e n c e w i l l be o f f e r e d i n m i t i g a t i o n . " S t a t e v . F r a z i e r ( 1 9 9 1 ) , 61 O h i o S t . 3d 2 4 7 , 2 5 5 , 574 N.E. 2d 483. We also reiterate that post-conviction proceedings were designed to redress denials or infringements of basic c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s and were n o t i n t e n d e d a s an a v e n u e f o r s i m p l y r e t r y i n g t h e c a s e . [ L a u g e s e n ] v . S t a t e , [ ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 11 O h i o M i s c . 10, 227 N.E. 2 d 663] s u p r a ; S t a t e v . L o t t , [ ( N o v . 3, 1 9 9 4 ) , C u y a h o g a A p p . N o s . 66338, 66389, 66390], s u p r a . F u r t h e r , the f a i l u r e to present evidence which is merely c u m u l a t i v e t o t h a t w h i c h was p r e s e n t e d a t trial i s , generally speaking, not indicative of ineffective a s s i s t a n c e of t r i a l c o u n s e l . S t a t e v . Combs ( 1 9 9 4 ) , 100 O h i o A p p . 3d 90, 1 0 5 , 652 N.E. 2d 205.' 137 record claim that his mitigating counsel However, by CR-08-1413 "Jells v. Cir.2008). Mitchell, 538 F.3d 478 , 48 9 (6th "'"[C]ounsel is not required to present a l l m i t i g a t i o n evidence, even i f the a d d i t i o n a l m i t i g a t i o n evidence would not have been i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h counsel's s t r a t e g y . C o u n s e l m u s t be p e r m i t t e d t o w e e d o u t some a r g u m e n t s t o s t r e s s o t h e r s and a d v o c a t e e f f e c t i v e l y . " H a l i b u r t o n v. S e c ' y for the Dep't of C o r r . , 342 F.3d 1233, 1243-44 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2003) ( q u o t a t i o n marks and citations omitted); see Herring v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 397 F.3d 1338, 1348-50 (11th Cir. 2005) (rejecting ineffective assistance claim where defendant's mother was only m i t i g a t i o n witness and counsel did not introduce evidence from h o s p i t a l records i n counsel's p o s s e s s i o n s h o w i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s b r a i n damage and m e n t a l r e t a r d a t i o n o r c a l l p s y c h o l o g i s t who e v a l u a t e d d e f e n d a n t p r e - t r i a l a s h a v i n g dull normal intelligence); Hubbard v. Haley, 317 F.3d 1245, 1254 n. 16, 1260 (11th C i r . 2003) ( s t a t i n g t h i s C o u r t has "consistently held that there is 'no a b s o l u t e d u t y ... t o i n t r o d u c e m i t i g a t i n g o r c h a r a c t e r e v i d e n c e ' " and r e j e c t i n g c l a i m t h a t c o u n s e l were i n e f f e c t i v e i n f a i l i n g t o present h o s p i t a l records showing defendant was in "borderline mentally retarded range") (brackets omitted) (quoting Chandler [v. United S t a t e s ] , 218 F.3d [ 1 3 0 5 ] a t 1319 [(11th C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) ] ) . ' "Wood v . A l l e n , 542 F.3d 1281 , 1306 (11th C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) . 'The d e c i s i o n o f w h a t m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e t o p r e s e n t d u r i n g the p e n a l t y phase of a c a p i t a l case i s g e n e r a l l y a matter of t r i a l s t r a t e g y . ' H i l l v. M i t c h e l l , 400 F. 3d 3 0 8 , 331 (6th C i r . 2005). 138 CR-08-1413 Dunaway v. 3d , State, [Ms. (Ala. Crim. C R - 0 6 - 0 9 9 6 , D e c e m b e r 18, App. 2009] 2009). Additionally, "'When claims of ineffective a s s i s t a n c e of counsel i n v o l v e the p e n a l t y phase of a c a p i t a l murder t r i a l the focus i s on " w h e t h e r ' t h e s e n t e n c e r ... would have concluded that the balance of a g g r a v a t i n g and m i t i g a t i n g circumstances d i d n o t w a r r a n t d e a t h . ' " J o n e s v. State, 753 So. 2 d 1174 , 11 97 (Ala. Crim. App. 1 9 9 9 ) , q u o t i n g S t e v e n s v . Z a n t , 968 F.2d 1 07 6, 1 08 1 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1992 ) . See also W i l l i a m s v . S t a t e , 783 So. 2 d 108 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) . An a t t o r n e y ' s performance i s n o t p e r se i n e f f e c t i v e f o r f a i l i n g t o present m i t i g a t i n g evidence at the p e n a l t y phase of a c a p i t a l t r i a l . See State v. R i z z o , 266 C o n n . 1 7 1 , 833 A . 2 d 363 (2003); Howard v. S t a t e , 853 So. 2d 781 (Miss. 2 0 0 3 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 540 U.S. 1197 (2004); B a t t e n f i e l d v . S t a t e , 953 P. 2 d 1123 (Okla. C r i m . App. 1 9 9 8 ) ; C o n n e r v. A n d e r s o n , 259 F. S u p p . 2d 741 (S.D. I n d . 2 0 0 3 ) ; S m i t h v . Cockrell, 311 F . 3 d 661 (5th C i r . 2002); D u c k e t t v . M u l l i n , 306 F . 3 d 982 ( 1 0 t h C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 123 S . C t . 1911 (2003); H a y e s v . W o o d f o r d , 301 F. 3d 1054 ( 9 t h C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) ; a n d H u n t v . L e e , 291 F . 3 d 284 (4th C i r . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 537 U.S. 1045 ( 2 0 0 2 ) . ' " A d k i n s v . S t a t e , 930 So. 2 d 5 2 4 , 536 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001) ( o p i n i o n on r e t u r n t o t h i r d r e m a n d ) . A s we a l s o s t a t e d i n M c W i l l i a m s v . S t a t e , 8 97 So. 2 d 437, 453-54 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2004): 139 So. CR-08-1413 "'"Prejudicial ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland cannot be established on t h e g e n e r a l claim that additional witnesses should have been c a l l e d i n m i t i g a t i o n . See B r i l e y v . B a s s , 750 F . 2 d 1 2 3 8 , 1248 ( 4 t h C i r . 1 9 8 4 ) ; s e e a l s o B a s s e t t e v . T h o m p s o n , 915 F . 2 d 9 3 2 , 941 (4th Cir.1990). Rather, the deciding factor i s whether additional witnesses would h a v e made a n y d i f f e r e n c e i n the m i t i g a t i o n phase of t h e t r i a l . " Smith v. Anderson, 104 F . S u p p . 2 d 7 7 3 , 809 ( S . D . O h i o 2 0 0 0 ) , a f f ' d , 348 F. 3 d 177 ( 6 t h C i r . 2003). "There has never been a case where a d d i t i o n a l w i t n e s s e s c o u l d n o t have been c a l l e d . " S t a t e v . T a r v e r , 629 S o . 2 d 1 4 , 21 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1993).'" Hunt v. State, 940 So. 2d 1 0 4 1 , 1067-68 (Ala. Crim. 2005). On d i r e c t appeal, this Court stated: "With regard to the application of the aggravating circumstance that t h e murders were e s p e c i a l l y heinous, atrocious, or c r u e l , the c i r c u i t c o u r t made t h e f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s o f f a c t o n r e m a n d : "'On the morning o f August 5, 1 9 9 9 , [ M i l l e r ] s h o t a n d k i l l e d t h r e e men, n a m e l y , C h r i s t o p h e r Y a n c y ( " Y a n c y " ) , a g e 28 y e a r s ; Lee H o l d b r o o k s ( " H o l d b r o o k s " ) , age 32; and Terry Jarvis ("Jarvis"), a g e 39 y e a r s . Y a n c y a n d H o l d b r o o k s were b o t h s h o t a t one l o c a t i o n a n d t h e r e a f t e r J a r v i s was s h o t a t another l o c a t i o n . Each of those victims s u s t a i n e d m u l t i p l e wounds. 140 App. CR-08-1413 " ' Y a n c y s u f f e r e d t h r e e wounds t o h i s body. I t appears the f i r s t shot e n t e r e d h i s l e g and t r a v e l e d t h r o u g h h i s g r o i n and i n t o h i s s p i n e , p a r a l y z i n g h i m . He was u n a b l e t o move, u n a b l e to defend h i m s e l f and was t r y i n g to hide from [ M i l l e r ] under a desk. Y a n c y h a d a c e l l p h o n e an i n c h o r two f r o m h i s hand, but because of h i s p a r a l y s i s was u n a b l e t o r e a c h i t and c a l l f o r h e l p . Y a n c y h a d t o h a v e b e e n a f r a i d h i s l i f e was a b o u t to be taken. Moments e l a p s e d . [Miller] appeared to have then s t o o p e d under the d e s k a n d h a v e made e y e c o n t a c t w i t h Y a n c y b e f o r e s h o o t i n g him t w i c e more c a u s i n g h i s death. "'Holdbrooks s u f f e r e d s i x wounds t o his body. [ M i l l e r ] shot Holdbrooks s e v e r a l times. Holdbrooks c r a w l e d down a h a l l w a y for about t w e n t y - f i v e f e e t . Holdbrooks was u n c e r t a i n w h e t h e r he w o u l d l i v e o r d i e a s he crawled down t h e hallway and quite p o s s i b l y h i s l i f e was f l a s h i n g by i n h i s m i n d . [ M i l l e r ] t o o k h i s gun a n d w i t h i n two inches of Holdbrooks' head, p u l l e d the t r i g g e r f o r t h e s i x t h and f i n a l t i m e , t h e b u l l e t e n t e r i n g Holdbrooks' head causing him t o d i e i n a p o o l of b l o o d . " ' J a r v i s was s h o t f i v e t i m e s , t h e l a s t s h o t b e i n g no m o r e t h a n 46 i n c h e s away f r o m h i s b o d y . B e f o r e J a r v i s was s h o t , [Miller] had p o i n t e d a gun a t h i m i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f a w i t n e s s . [ M i l l e r ] had a c c u s e d J a r v i s of s p r e a d i n g rumors about him w h i c h J a r v i s had denied. [ M i l l e r ] shot J a r v i s four times i n the chest. [ M i l l e r ] a l l o w e d the w i t n e s s to l e a v e . No one k n o w s a t t h a t p o i n t w h a t w e n t through Jarvis' mind. Having denied he s p r e a d a n y r u m o r s , he m u s t h a v e w o n d e r e d why [ M i l l e r ] had n o t b e l i e v e d him and as 141 CR-08-1413 t h e w i t n e s s was a l l o w e d t o l e a v e t h a t maybe t h e r e w o u l d b e no m o r e s h o o t i n g a n d h i s l i f e w o u l d be s p a r e d . [ M i l l e r ] then shot J a r v i s through h i s heart ending Jarvis' life. "'It appears a l l three of [ M i l l e r ' s ] victims suffered f o r a while not only p h y s i c a l l y , but p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y . In each i n s t a n c e , t h e r e a p p e a r e d t o have been hope for l i f e w h i l e t h e y were h u r t i n g , o n l y t o have t h e i r f a t e s e a l e d by a f i n a l shot, execution style. "'Based upon t h e f a c t s p r e s e n t e d a t t h i s t r i a l , t h e s e murders were c a l c u l a t e d , premeditated and callous, with utter disregard o f human l i f e . The t a k i n g o f these l i v e s was among t h e w o r s t i n t h e memory o f t h i s C o u r t a n d was w e l l b e y o n d the level of being especially heinous, atrocious or cruel.' "...[T]here was s u f f i c i e n t time between t h e initial g u n s h o t wounds and t h e f i n a l , f a t a l shots for each of the v i c t i m s t o r e a l i z e h i s f a t e . Given the circumstances, the trial court properly c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e m u r d e r o f t h e t h r e e v i c t i m s was ' e s p e c i a l l y heinous, a t r o c i o u s , o r c r u e l . ' See Ex p a r t e C l a r k , 728 S o . 2 d 1 1 2 6 , 1 1 4 0 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) . Miller, 913 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 6 5 - 6 7 . This counsel Court has reviewed allegedly failed the m i t i g a t i n g evidence to discover 142 and p r e s e n t trial against the CR-08-1413 aggravating there circumstances would Wiggins v. be no his trial additional trial. by change Smith, Accordingly, presented 539 U.S. Miller counsel in were mitigating the at was due no c l a i m of i n e f f e c t i v e in manner for the has this case. See Payne, on not his claim that presenting penalty phase also failed of to the the prove that his appellate counsel i n which a s s i s t a n c e of t r i a l sentencing proceedings. in relief ineffective evidence i n the are c o n f i d e n t t h a t 534. Thus, i t f o l l o w s t h a t M i l l e r ineffective we result a preponderance of the evidence were and 791 So. they presented counsel i n the 2d at this post- 401. 4. Miller assistance (Miller's brief, at contends during brief, 34-38.) his his trial counsel rendered ineffective penalty-phase opening statement. II(B)(2)(d), Specifically, at 117-124; Miller Miller's argues: " T r i a l c o u n s e l made no a t t e m p t t o o u t l i n e a c o h e r e n t mitigation case, t o h u m a n i z e Mr. Miller, or to p r o v i d e a c o n t e x t f o r the t e s t i m o n y of Dr. S c o t t , the only m i t i g a t i o n w i t n e s s . Instead, T r i a l Counsel d i d t h e o p p o s i t e : he v i l i f i e d Mr. M i l l e r , u n d e r m i n e d the credibility of Dr. Scott, and effectively c o n c e d e d t h e o n l y a g g r a v a t i n g f a c t o r on w h i c h the State r e l i e d . " 143 reply CR-08-1413 (Miller's The in brief, circuit the at 117-18.) court rejected appellate motion-for-new-trial hearing counsel "undermined argument during court's On the order denying direct the mitigation p e n a l t y phase Miller's a p p e a l , we of motion counsel's that case the assertion Miller's in his trial." f o r new a f f i r m e d the c i r c u i t trial, trial opening (Circuit at court's order, stating: " M i l l e r contends that t r i a l counsel's opening statement at the p e n a l t y phase prejudiced his d e f e n s e a n d any m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e t o be p r e s e n t e d during the penalty-phase portion of h i s trial. S p e c i f i c a l l y , M i l l e r claims that counsel's opening statement undermined the c r e d i b i l i t y of the o n l y d e f e n s e w i t n e s s b e i n g o f f e r e d -- D r . C h a r l e s S c o t t . The end result of counsel's opening statement, M i l l e r claims, suggested to the j u r y that Miller d e s e r v e d t o be s e n t e n c e d t o d e a t h . "We have reviewed trial counsel's opening statement i n i t s e n t i r e t y . Consistent w i t h counsel's t r i a l s t r a t e g y -- a s t e s t i f i e d t o d u r i n g t h e h e a r i n g o n M i l l e r ' s n e w - t r i a l m o t i o n -- c o u n s e l e l e c t e d t o a c k n o w l e d g e D r . S c o t t ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e r e was no basis under Alabama law to support an insanity defense i n an effort to retain his credibility b e f o r e t h e j u r y a n d t o s e c u r e an a d v i s o r y v e r d i c t o f l i f e imprisonment without p a r o l e , rather than the death sentence. Given the overwhelming evidence of Miller's guilt -including eyewitness testimony i d e n t i f y i n g M i l l e r a s t h e s h o o t e r -- c o u n s e l h a d little choice but to acknowledge M i l l e r ' s guilt. 144 17.) CR-08-1413 Accordingly, counsel attempted to gain the jury's sympathy by u s i n g Dr. S c o t t ' s t e s t i m o n y t o p o r t r a y M i l l e r as a ' t o r t u r e d s o u l ' whose d e l u s i o n s drove him t o commit a s e r i e s of h o r r i f i c a c t s . Indeed, our review of counsel's a r g u m e n t r e v e a l s i t t o be an impassioned p l e a t h a t the j u r y spare M i l l e r ' s l i f e . " Miller, 913 So. Miller presented 2d at contends and that argued and relief. assistance the in his which The in he would 'whether to 2008 not opening [the court trial that no thought feelings 32 Hearing, concluded that M i l l e r was at the 151, to rehashes his phase addressed opening what was ineffective penalty thoroughly matter properly entitled rendered had or Miller' The or that 145 he was prejudiced and Miller February circuit f a i l e d to prove that h i s t r i a l deficient the done, not' that (C. 2 0 6 8 , c i t i n g 156.) of statement, Miller atrocious [ w e r e ] a b o u t Mr. R. been merely counsel's he counsel motion-for-new-trial have counsel statement circuit jury] the Miller deserve the death p e n a l t y . " Rule strategy claim, trial convey 'whatever t h e i r did this behind Miller's "was appellate claim his trial. rationale on that his this arguing argument had appeal, proceedings In 1163. court counsel's by his CR-08-1413 counsel's court's opening statement. f i n d i n g s are Accordingly, prove by counsel this s u p p o r t e d by i t follows a preponderance of post-sentencing The circuit record. Miller has evidence also to appellate i n t h e manner i n w h i c h t h e y presented assistance proceedings. of Payne, that failed his ineffective the 2067-73.) the that of were i n e f f e c t i v e claim (C. trial 791 counsel So. 2d at in the 401. D. In number the of fourth claims part of of his argument, ineffective assistance t h a t , he contends, h i s appellate counsel in motion-for-new-trial the (Miller's brief, II(C), at Miller trial s h o u l d have proceedings 124-48; of presents and Miller's a counsel presented on appeal. reply brief, at 39.) 1. Miller maintains examination counsel made was no that his inadequate effort to trial because, determine counsel's he juror voir claims, "[t]rial bias improper or i n f l u e n c e from the p r e j u d i c i a l media coverage of the "[e]ven when bias was apparent, 146 he dire failed to case" strike and the CR-08-1413 juror." (Miller's brief, a t 124.) Thus, he a l l e g e s t h a t h i s a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l were i n e f f e c t i v e f o r n o t p u r s u i n g t h i s in the p o s t - t r i a l proceedings at 124-28.) The c i r c u i t court denied a n d on a p p e a l . Miller's claim, (Miller's claim brief, stating: "In p a r a g r a p h s 158-167 o f h i s amended p e t i t i o n , M i l l e r claims t h a t t r i a l counsel Johnson's v o i r d i r e was i n a d e q u a t e . [ A m e n d e d R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n , C. 3 1 4 ¬ 17.] Miller alleges that Johnson d i d not ask questions r e l a t e d t o the j u r o r s exposure t o media coverage of t h e t r i a l and d i d not e f f e c t i v e l y ask questions designed t o uncover p o t e n t i a l b i a s a g a i n s t Miller. " T h i s C o u r t d e n i e s M i l l e r ' s c l a i m b e c a u s e he h a s f a i l e d t o meet h i s b u r d e n o f p r o o f o f d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t h i s t r i a l c o u n s e l ' s p e r f o r m a n c e was d e f i c i e n t u n d e r S t r i c k l a n d , 466 U.S. a t 6 8 7 . A l a . R. C r i m . P., 32.7(d). Because of the e x t e n s i v e p u b l i c i t y i n t h i s case, Johnson, along w i t h the D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e , d e v e l o p e d a w r i t t e n q u e s t i o n n a i r e t h a t was p r o v i d e d t o t h e e n t i r e j u r y p a n e l . [ F e b r u a r y 2008 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 2 3 6 . ] W i t h i n t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , q u e s t i o n #68 s p e c i f i c a l l y a s k e d t h e j u r o r s t o a n s w e r whether they had seen a n y t h i n g about t h e case i n any n e w s p a p e r . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 2 3 7 . ] Additional questions were included in the questionnaire to determine whether a particular j u r o r had such s t r o n g f i x e d o p i n i o n s about t h e case or c o u l d n o t be f a i r or impartial as a juror. [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 2 3 8 . ] " J o h n s o n t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d an o p p o r t u n i t y t o review the responses t o the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s f o r a l l m e m b e r s o f t h e j u r y p a n e l a n d t h a t h e knew t h e 147 CR-08-1413 j u r o r s ' r e s p o n s e s i d e n t i f y i n g w h a t t h e y saw i n t h e newspapers about the case. [ F e b r u a r y 2008 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 2 3 7 - 3 8 . ] D u r i n g t r i a l , t h e t r i a l c o u r t and c o u n s e l f o r b o t h p a r t i e s c o n d u c t e d an e x t e n s i v e i n d i v i d u a l v o i r d i r e of the j u r y panel. [Direct A p p e a l , R. 1 3 0 - 7 6 3 . ] A s t h e r e c o r d iinnddiiccaatteess,, J o h n s o n s t r a t e g i c a l l y c o n d u c t e d v o i r d i r e t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r any ed juror had a f i x e d o p i n i o n , f o r any r e a s o n , o f t h e c a s e . Johnson a l e r t e d the t r i a l c o u r t to q u e s t i o n s #68, #69 and #70 of the juror questionnaire that p e r t a i n e d t o the j u r o r ' s o p i n i o n s of the case and i m p l o r e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o f o c u s i t s q u e s t i o n s on whether the j u r o r s had ' f i x e d o p i n i o n s ' of the case. [ D i r e c t A p p e a l , R. 1 4 6 - 4 7 . ] A s a r e s u l t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t determined t h a t i t would examine each juror's r e s p o n s e t o q u e s t i o n #68 a n d i f t h e j u r o r i n d i c a t e d they had h e a r d something about the case, the t r i a l c o u r t w o u l d i n q u i r e what t h e j u r o r h e a r d and whether the j u r o r c o u l d s e t a s i d e what t h e y had heard. [ D i r e c t A p p e a l , R. 148.] "During the e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g , M i l l e r ' s [Rule 32] counsel questioned Johnson about specific n e w s p a p e r a r t i c l e s a n d t h e n q u e s t i o n e d J o h n s o n on w h e t h e r he a s k e d e i g h t j u r o r s a b o u t w h a t t h e y h a d r e a d a b o u t t h e c a s e i n t h e n e w s p a p e r . [ F e b r u a r y 2008 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 1 2 7 - 3 4 . ] H o w e v e r , a s t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s , as a r e s u l t o f J o h n s o n ' s e f f o r t , d u r i n g i n d i v i d u a l v o i r d i r e , the t r i a l c o u r t noted each of the eight juror's responses to question #68 i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the j u r o r had seen or r e a d something about the case and then a s k e d each j u r o r whether t h e y c o u l d s e t what t h e y had l e a r n e d a s i d e and base their verdict s o l e l y on the evidence presented. [ D i r e c t A p p e a l , R. 3 3 7 - 3 8 , 3 4 5 - 4 6 , 3 7 6 - 7 7 , 4 4 6 - 4 7 , 449-50, 625-26, 638-39, 666-67.] A l l e i g h t j u r o r s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y c o u l d s e t a s i d e what t h e y had l e a r n e d and s i t as a f a i r and i m p a r t i a l j u r o r . I d . 148 CR-08-1413 "Therefore, information about the jurors' o p i n i o n s a b o u t t h e c a s e was b r o u g h t o u t d u r i n g t h e v o i r d i r e and M i l l e r has f a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t Johnson's method of conducting voir dire was deficient. Miller has failed to present any e v i d e n c e t h a t a r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y would have asked these eight jurors about specific newspaper a r t i c l e s . Furthermore, M i l l e r f a i l e d to ask Johnson why he d i d n o t s t r i k e t h e s e e i g h t j u r o r s f r o m t h e panel, nor did Miller ask any specific question regarding Johnson's s t r a t e g y f o r using the defense's peremptory s t r i k e s . Therefore, because the r e c o r d i s silent, trial counsel's questioning of the jury panel and the subsequent peremptory strikes is p r e s u m e d t o be r e a s o n a b l e . See C h a n d l e r [ v . U n i t e d States], 218 F. 3 d 1 3 0 5 , 1315 n. 15 [(11th C i r . 2000)]. ^-^^ ^1 ^ ^ A ^ TK/J A 1 1 ^ ^ ^ A -P A ^ ^ ^ 4- A "In paragraph 162 o f h i s amended petition, Miller claims that his t r i a l counsel failed to q u e s t i o n a n d r e m o v e J u r o r [ G . J . ] who M i l l e r a l l e g e s was b i a s e d b e c a u s e J u r o r [ G . J . ] f a v o r e d t h e d e a t h penalty. [Amended Rule 32 Petition, C. 315.] However, t r i a l c o u n s e l ' s q u e s t i o n i n g of J u r o r [G.J.] was not d e f i c i e n t and t h e r e c o r d d i r e c t l y r e f u t e s M i l l e r ' s c l a i m t h a t J u r o r [ G . J . ] was b i a s e d . Juror [ G . J . ] s t a t e d d u r i n g v o i r d i r e t h a t he c o u l d f o l l o w the t r i a l c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s and l i s t e n t o the evidence i n recommending a sentence i n Miller's c a s e . [ D i r e c t A p p e a l , R. 3 7 7 - 7 8 . ] J u r o r [ G . J . ] a l s o s t a t e d t h a t w h e r e i t was a p p r o p r i a t e u n d e r t h e law and evidence he could vote for either life imprisonment or the death p e n a l t y . [Direct Appeal, R. 378.] Furthermore, trial counsel Johnson s p e c i f i c a l l y q u e s t i o n e d J u r o r [G.J.] a b o u t h i s v i e w s on t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y a n d e l i c i t e d f r o m J u r o r [ G . J . ] that he had no fixed opinions about what an a p p r o p r i a t e p u n i s h m e n t s h o u l d be. [ D i r e c t A p p e a l , R. 387-90.] A c c o r d i n g l y , Miller's claim i s directly r e f u t e d by t h e r e c o r d and i s d e n i e d . See G a d d y v . S t a t e , 952 So. 2 d 1 1 4 9 , 1161 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2006). 149 CR-08-1413 II "This c l a i m i s a l s o d e n i e d because M i l l e r has utterly failed t o meet h i s b u r d e n or proof of d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t h e was p r e j u d i c e d b y h i s t r i a l counsel's performance during voir dire. See Strickland, 466 U.S. a t 6 9 5 ; A l a . R. C r i m . P., 32.7(d). Although M i l l e r claims that t r i a l counsel was i n e f f e c t i v e f o r f a i l i n g t o a s k s e i g h t o f t h e f o u r t e e n j u r o r s s e a t e d i n h i s case about what t h e y r e a d o r remembered about M i l l e r ' s case, M i l l e r has f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t any e v i d e n c e w h a t s o e v e r about what t h e s e e i g h t j u r o r s a c t u a l l y r e a d o r remembered about M i l l e r ' s c a s e p r i o r t o t r i a l . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 1 3 4 . ] N o n e o f t h e j u r o r s who s a t a t Miller's trial t e s t i f i e d during the evidentiary h e a r i n g . T h e r e f o r e , n o e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d t h a t the e i g h t j u r o r s a c t u a l l y r e a d o r were exposed t o the newspaper a r t i c l e s i n t r o d u c e d i n t o evidence by Miller during the e v i d e n t i a r y hearing. [February 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 1 2 7 - 3 4 , 2 8 9 - 9 5 . ] E v e n i f the e i g h t j u r o r s had read these newspaper a r t i c l e s , n o e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d t h a t t h e j u r o r s c o n s i d e r e d these a r t i c l e s harmful t o M i l l e r or t h a t they had fixed opinions about Miller because of these articles. "There i s n o t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d r e g a r d i n g what the j u r o r s ' read about M i l l e r ' s case; a c c o r d i n g l y , ' [ t ] h e m e r e f a c t t h a t some o f t h e j u r o r s t h a t s a t for [ M i l l e r ' s ] t r i a l had p r e t r i a l knowledge of h i s case i s n o t enough t o e s t a b l i s h t h e y were b i a s e d a g a i n s t h i m . ' D u n c a n v . S t a t e , 925 S o . 2 d 2 4 5 , 267 (Ala. C r i m . App. 2005). T h e r e f o r e , b e c a u s e t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e a b o u t w h a t t h e j u r o r s r e a d a n d w h e t h e r t h e y were a c t u a l l y b i a s e d a g a i n s t M i l l e r because o f what t h e y r e a d , M i l l e r has f a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e that h e was p r e j u d i c e d b y t h i s trial counsel's performance during v o i r dire. Miller's claim i s denied." 150 CR-08-1413 (C. 2039-45.) The and circuit Alabama court's l a w . A s we f i n d i n g s a r e s u p p o r t e d by t h e stated on d i r e c t record appeal: "[T]he p o t e n t i a l f o r a c t u a l j u r o r p r e j u d i c e was addressed through v o i r d i r e during the s e l e c t i o n of the j u r y . Through the use of j u r o r questionnaires a n d i n d i v i d u a l v o i r d i r e , a n y p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s who may h a v e h a d f i x e d o p i n i o n s r e g a r d i n g M i l l e r ' s g u i l t w e r e e x c u s e d f r o m s e r v i c e . N o r was t h e r e a n y s h o w i n g t h a t media coverage c r e a t e d a presumption of a c t u a l p r e j u d i c e . S e e E x p a r t e T r a v i s , 776 S o . 2 d 8 7 4 , 879 (Ala. 2000). " Miller, 913 So. 2d a t Accordingly, his claim of meritorious, evidence failing 1162. "[b]ecause ineffective he h a s f a i l e d that his contends argued that h i s t r i a l [Miller] of trial counsel i s t o prove by a preponderance of the claim." that f a i l e d to establish that assistance appellate to present this Miller 9 counsel ineffective for P a y n e , 791 S o . 2 d a t 4 0 1 - 0 2 . h i s appellate counsel was counsel should have rendered i n e f f e c t i v e assistance I n t h e q u o t e d p o r t i o n o f o u r o p i n i o n on d i r e c t a p p e a l , t h i s C o u r t was a d d r e s s i n g M i l l e r ' s a l l e g a t i o n t h a t h i s t r i a l c o u n s e l was i n e f f e c t i v e f o r n o t m o v i n g f o r a c h a n g e o f v e n u e . 9 151 CR-08-1413 in h i s closing (Miller's In this brief, argument phase of the trial. a t 131-33.) the c i r c u i t claim, at the guilt court's the court order denying Miller relief stated: "In p a r a g r a p h s 209-13 o f h i s amended p e t i t i o n , M i l l e r c l a i m s t h a t h i s t r i a l c o u n s e l was i n e f f e c t i v e d u r i n g t h e g u i l t phase c l o s i n g arguments. Miller claims that Johnson conceded guilt a n d made n o attempt t o argue t h a t M i l l e r d i d n o t have t h e i n t e n t t o c o m m i t m u r d e r . [ A m e n d e d R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n , C. 3 2 9 ¬ 331.] Miller also claims that Johnson was i n e f f e c t i v e f o r s t a t i n g t h a t he was n o t ' p r o u d ' t o represent M i l l e r . [Amended R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n , C. 330.] " T h i s C o u r t d e n i e s M i l l e r ' s c l a i m b e c a u s e he h a s f a i l e d t o meet h i s b u r d e n o f p r o o f o f d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t h i s t r i a l c o u n s e l ' s p e r f o r m a n c e was d e f i c i e n t u n d e r S t r i c k l a n d , 4 6 6 U.S. a t 6 8 7 . A l a . R. C r i m . P., 3 2 . 7 ( d ) . J o h n s o n ' s c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t was r e a s o n a b l e b a s e d b o t h on t h e t a c t i c a l d e c i s i o n t o f o c u s on t h e p e n a l t y phase o f t r i a l and h i s o v e r a l l s t r a t e g y o f not p r e s e n t i n g f r i v o l o u s arguments i n order t o w i n c r e d i b i l i t y w i t h t h e j u r y . [ D i r e c t A p p e a l , R. 1 2 6 1 ¬ 64.] A s n o t e d a b o v e , J o h n s o n c o n t i n u a l l y t e s t i f i e d t h a t he s t r a t e g i c a l l y c h o s e t o f o c u s on t h e p e n a l t y phase o f M i l l e r ' s t r i a l i n o r d e r t o save M i l l e r ' s l i f e . [ M o t i o n f o r New T r i a l H e a r i n g , R. 8 0 ; F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 2 1 9 . ] I n a n a t t e m p t t o b o l s t e r h i s chances o f success d u r i n g t h e p e n a l t y p h a s e , J o h n s o n made a t a c t i c a l d e c i s i o n t o e m p h a s i z e to the jury that he w o u l d n o t be p r e s e n t i n g f r i v o l o u s evidence o r arguments d u r i n g t h e g u i l t p h a s e . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 1 4 3 , 2 1 9 . ] 152 on CR-08-1413 "Similar to his comments during opening statements, Johnson echoed to the jury during c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t s t h a t he was n o t g o i n g t o present a f r i v o l o u s d e f e n s e s u c h a s a r g u i n g a s e c o n d gunman e x i s t e d or c h a l l e n g i n g the f a c t t h a t the p r o s e c u t i o n c o u l d not match the b u l l e t s taken from the v i c t i m s to Miller's gun. [Direct Appeal, R. 1261-62.] J o h n s o n r e m i n d e d t h e j u r y of t h e S t a t e ' s b u r d e n and implored the jury to listen to the judge's i n s t r u c t i o n s on t h e l a w a n d r e n d e r a v e r d i c t b a s e d on t h e f a c t s a n d c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e i r o a t h . [ D i r e c t A p p e a l , R. 1 2 6 3 . ] M i l l e r h a s f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t any evidence which would establish that Miller's c o n t i n u a l e f f o r t d u r i n g c l o s i n g arguments to gain credibility with the j u r y i n order t o make an e f f e c t i v e p e n a l t y p h a s e a r g u m e n t was unreasonable. "Johnson's d e c i s i o n to not argue t h a t M i l l e r d i d not have i n t e n t t o commit c a p i t a l murder during c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t s was consistent with his overall t r i a l s t r a t e g y o f f o c u s i n g on t h e p e n a l t y p h a s e o f the t r i a l . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 219.] Moreover, Johnson's comments about his r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of M i l l e r were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s s t r a t e g y a s w e l l . J o h n s o n t o l d t h e j u r y t h a t he was p r o u d o f h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f M i l l e r , b u t i n an e f f o r t t o w i n f a v o r w i t h t h e j u r y , a l s o s t a t e d he was still not p r o u d of what happened d u r i n g the shootings: "'And I a t l e a s t am p r o u d a t t h i s point t h a t I have p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s . I t does n o t r e m o v e a n y d e g r e e t h e shame o f w h a t h a p p e n e d . I t d o e s n o t make me p r o u d t h a t I'm r e p r e s e n t i n g s o m e o n e who the evidence is f a i r l y convincing, I must concede t o y o u , d i d w h a t he d i d . ' " [ D i r e c t A p p e a l , R. 1 2 6 3 - 6 4 . ] D u r i n g t h e e v i d e n t i a r y hearing, Johnson e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h i s statement could 153 CR-08-1413 n o t be v i e w e d i n i s o l a t i o n , b u t as p a r t o f a l a r g e r goal of not a l i e n a t i n g the j u r y d u r i n g the guilt phase to attempt to win favor with the jury. [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 h e a r i n g , R. 1 4 2 - 4 3 . ] "When v i e w e d i n t h e c o n t e x t o f J o h n s o n ' s entire trial strategy, Johnson's closing argument was reasonable attempt to gain c r e d i b i l i t y w i t h the j u r y d u r i n g the g u i l t phase i n order to attempt t o get a f a v o r a b l e r e s u l t i n t h e p e n a l t y p h a s e -- t h e f o c u s of Johnson's strategy. Based on this approach, Miller has failed to demonstrate that trial c o u n s e l ' s d e c i s i o n was unreasonable or that h i s p e r f o r m a n c e d u r i n g c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t s was deficient under S t r i c k l a n d . Therefore, t h i s c l a i m i s denied. "This claim i s a l s o denied because M i l l e r f a i l e d t o m e e t h i s b u r d e n o f p r o o f o f d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t he was p r e j u d i c e d by his trial counsel's closing a r g u m e n t . See S t r i c k l a n d , 466 U.S. a t 6 9 5 ; A l a . R. C r i m . P; 3 2 . 7 ( d ) . M i l l e r h a s p r e s e n t e d no e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g t h e i m p a c t o f J o h n s o n ' s s t a t e m e n t s on t h e jury, nor has Miller demonstrated a reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t the outcome of the g u i l t phase of h i s t r i a l would have been d i f f e r e n t had Johnson not c o n d u c t e d h i s c l o s i n g argument i n t h i s manner. In g e n e r a l , s t a t e m e n t s o f c o u n s e l 'are u s u a l l y v a l u e d by t h e j u r y a t t h e i r t r u e w o r t h and a r e not e x p e c t e d t o become f a c t o r s i n t h e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e v e r d i c t . ' M i n o r , 914 S o . 2 d a t 4 1 7 . M i l l e r o f f e r e d n o t h i n g more i n s u p p o r t o f h i s c l a i m o f i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s t h a n the bare, conclusory allegation that Johnson's c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t was i m p r o p e r a n d t h a t i t p r e j u d i c e d the jury, without proving specific facts that demonstrate p r e j u d i c e . A c c o r d i n g l y , M i l l e r has not met h i s burden of demonstrating p r e j u d i c e under S t r i c k l a n d and t h e r e f o r e , t h i s c l a i m i s d e n i e d . " (C. 2060-64.) 154 CR-08-1413 The law circuit are court's supported d i s c u s s i o n , supra, that h i st r i a l of the record. addressing was (See this and r e j e c t i n g M i l l e r ' s ineffective.) Accordingly, of Court's assertion phase "[b]ecause f a i l e d to establish that his ineffective-assistance- of-trial-counsel by the o f f a c t and conclusions counsel's opening statement a t the g u i l t trial [Miller] by findings claim i smeritorious, he h a s f a i l e d a preponderance of the evidence that t o prove h i sappellate counsel was i n e f f e c t i v e f o r f a i l i n g t o p r e s e n t t h i s c l a i m . " P a y n e , 791 So. a t 401-02. 3. Miller alleges argued that that histrial counsel d i d n o t move State's failure h i s appellate counsel that the atrocious, or (Miller's brief, cruel should have i n e f f e c t i v e because trial for a directed to present determine were counsel verdict "based comparative evidence killings compared a t 139-42.) were Miller necessary to 'especially to other capital heinous, offenses.'" that because t h i s p a r t i c u l a r c l a i m was n o t a d d r e s s e d i n t h e c i r c u i t court's order d e n y i n g t h e R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n , is candid a admission that trial 155 suggests on t h e that the court's counsel's failure "silence t o make CR-08-1413 this of a r g u m e n t d e p r i v e d Mr. counsel." The State before this amended cannot (Miller's Court 32 raise an which 239 that because issue of the e f f e c t i v e at and this claim not the appeal from not raised in the the 1997.) We Miller Court raised assistance of t r i a l a s b e s t we can d e t e r m i n e , numerous c o u n s e l were i n e f f e c t i v e not move for to consider that when the present verdict comparative i n determining whether t h e o f f e n s e was especially compared t o o t h e r c a p i t a l Rule 32 evidentiary 716 that this So. claim the the was thus, i s not of ineffective 32 petition, trial counsel d i d ground for that the the State jury to aggravating circumstance heinous, atrocious, cases had been proven. hearing, 156 because evidence 2d review. grounds on 32 petition." M i l l e r d i d not present a c l a i m trial failed "'[Miller] 32 c o u n s e l i n h i s amended R u l e directed Miller's of a Rule c o u r t and, for appellate his a denial Rule properly in asserts agree not p r o p e r l y presented to the c i r c u i t Although not q u o t i n g A r r i n g t o n v. S t a t e , ( A l a . C r i m . App. properly before this is presented State on a t 140, assistance 142.) i t was petition, was (State's b r i e f , 237, brief, maintains Rule petition Miller the following or cruel During exchange CR-08-1413 o c c u r r e d between counsel, Mickey Miller's Rule 32 c o u n s e l and M i l l e r ' s Johnson: "Q. Now, at the conclusion of the penalty p h a s e , Mr. J o h n s o n , you moved f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t and I b e l i e v e t h a t y o u s t a t e d on t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e ground was that the State failed t o prove an aggravating s t a t u t o r y c i r c u m s t a n c e . Do y o u r e c a l l making t h a t motion? "A. I don't r e c a l l i tb u t , here again, dispute the record. that I don't "Q. ... B u t y o u d i d n ' t e x p l a i n t h e b a s i s f o r m o t i o n t o Judge Crowson, d i d you? "A. I don't know. "Q. We h a v e d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r t h a t t h e s o l e aggravating factor i n this case the State was relying u p o n was that the capital offense was e s p e c i a l l y h e i n o u s , a t r o c i o u s o r c r u e l compared t o other c a p i t a l offenses; i s that correct? II "A. That's t h e way I recall i t , yes. " "Q. So t h e S t a t e d i d n ' t p r e s e n t t h e j u r y , w h i c h was g o i n g t o b e m a k i n g t h i s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n on t h e death p e n a l t y , w i t h any i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t would have 157 trial CR-08-1413 permitted the jury to compare the level of heinousness, a t r o c i o u s n e s s or c r u e l t y of t h i s crime to other c a p i t a l offenses, i s n ' t t h a t c o r r e c t ? the "A. I d o n ' t r e c a l l any e f f o r t s S t a t e i n t h a t r e g a r d , no. being made by "Q. A n d I am c o r r e c t y o u d i d n o t a r g u e t o J u d g e Crowson t h a t the f a i l u r e of the S t a t e t o p r e s e n t such compared evidence meant t h a t t h e S t a t e had f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h i s a g g r a v a t i n g f a c t o r as a m a t t e r o f l a w ? The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s no s u c h a r g u m e n t . I j u s t want t o c o n f i r m t h a t . "A. (February 2008 R u l e Given the Rule the 32 hearing, the that 32 often and the i t was amended R u l e verdict 193-94.) and of manner convoluted we i n which as on words, other a the this claim "argue" to alert 32 32 at the were in the the counsel's this the counsel s u f f i c i e n t l y present a " m a t e r i a l i s s u e of f a c t " 158 claims t h a t M i l l e r now Rule in c l a i m and specific sufficient allegation In of counsel d i d not t o be presented do n o t c o n s i d e r R u l e court to the very s p e c i f i c appeal. evidence issues addressed nature presented 32 p e t i t i o n , a directed R. variety random not record." testimony the "confirmation" that t r i a l for to the Hearing, amount o f hearings, addressed, fact I would aver ground circuit presents did i n the Rule not 32 CR-08-1413 hearing that required a finding See Rule 32.9(d), Miller's A l a . R. Crim. s u g g e s t i o n , we w i l l this mean that presents on Even argument Therefore, conceded claim i s entitled i s without i s the c i r c u i t aggravating t o no merit. court's circumstance that the offense offenses obligated the jury to consider i n order burden of proof. present facts from the State circumstance heinous, cases. verdict Miller now t o determine He c o n t e n d s that other atrocious, or cruel Thus, Miller imposing argues, a sentence he capital of other was the State d i d not for sole case compared was comparison aggravating especially to other entitled capital to a directed imprisonment without the p o s s i b i l i t y of parole. M i l l e r concludes 159 the especially the facts the i n this of l i f e regarding to other cases prove when Miller's w h e t h e r t h e S t a t e met i t s capital the offense of was compared that because d i d not because h i s gist instructions when cases relief The atrocious, or cruel purposes, that court's order t o the claim heinous, capital contrary to from t h e f a c t i n the c i r c u i t court court. appeal. so, M i l l e r underlying P. not interpret c l a i m was n o t a d d r e s s e d the c i r c u i t of f a c t by t h e c i r c u i t t h a t because h i s t r i a l CR-08-1413 counsel he failed t o move f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t o n t h i s was s e n t e n c e d In portion support to ground, death. o f h i s argument, of the c i r c u i t court's Miller cites instructions the following to the jury: "What i s intended t o be included i n this aggravating circumstance i s those where t h e a c t u a l commission of t h e c a p i t a l o f f e n s e i s accompanied by such a d d i t i o n a l a c t s as t o s e t t h e crime a p a r t from t h e norm o f c a p i t a l o f f e n s e s . " F o r a c a p i t a l o f f e n s e t o be e s p e c i a l l y c r u e l , i t must be a c o n s c i e n c e l e s s o r p i t i l e s s c r i m e w h i c h is unnecessary tortuous to the victim. A l l c a p i t a l offenses are heinous, a t r o c i o u s a n d c r u e l t o some e x t e n t . What i s i n t e n d e d t o be c o v e r e d by this aggravating circumstance i s only those cases i n which the degree of heinous, atrociousness or c r u e l t y e x c e e d s t h a t w h i c h w i l l a l w a y s e x i s t when a c a p i t a l offense i s committed." (Miller's brief, 1432-33)(emphasis The Alabama a t 140, c i t i n g i n Miller's record on d i r e c t appeal, brief). Supreme C o u r t has s t a t e d : "Bankhead suggests t h a t t h e j u r y s h o u l d have had the o p p o r t u n i t y t o compare t h e c a p i t a l o f f e n s e i n t h i s case w i t h other c a p i t a l offenses f o r purposes o f § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 9 ( 8 ) [, A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 ] . "Although a very narrow and l i t e r a l r e a d i n g o f t h e s t a t u t e may s u g g e s t t h a t s u c h a c o m p a r i s o n i s r e q u i r e d , i t w o u l d be v i r t u a l l y i m p o s s i b l e f o r t h e 160 R. CR-08-1413 c o u r t t o i m p l e m e n t . C h a r g i n g t h e j u r y on p e r t i n e n t f a c t s of 'other c a p i t a l cases' would unduly burden t h e c o u r t . I t w o u l d be u n w o r k a b l e f o r t h e c o u r t and would thoroughly confuse the jury. " T h i s C o u r t has d e c i d e d upon an a p p r o a c h f o r t h e purposes of § 13A-5-49(8). In comparing capital offenses f o r the purposes of determining whether a c a p i t a l o f f e n s e was ' e s p e c i a l l y h e i n o u s , a t r o c i o u s o r c r u e l , ' t h e c o u r t u s e s t h e [Ex p a r t e ] K y z e r [ , 399 So. 2 d 330 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) , ] s t a n d a r d . C a p i t a l o f f e n s e s f a l l i n g under § 13A-5-49(8) a r e , p u r s u a n t to the Kyzer standard, those 'conscienceless or p i t i l e s s homicides which are u n n e c e s s a r i l y torturous t o the v i c t i m . ' K y z e r , 3 9 9 S o . 2 d a t 3 3 4 . The t r i a l c o u r t clearly followed the Kyzer standard i n i t s instructions to the jury." Ex parte on r e t u r n t o remand, 625 So. 2d 1141 rev'd Bankhead, on o t h e r The State from other sustain (Ala. 1991), (Ala. Crim. was capital Contrary court's charge capital offenses State met 1992), g r o u n d s , 625 So. 2d 1146 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) . not required cases to present pertinent f o r comparison purposes atrocious, or cruel offenses. aff'd App. when to Miller's d i d not obligate compared the jury especially to other interpretation, facts i n order t o i t s b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g t h a t t h e o f f e n s e was heinous, the 585 So. 2 d a t 1 1 2 , 125 the to consider capital circuit other f o r c o m p a r i s o n p u r p o s e s when d e t e r m i n i n g i f i t s burden of 161 proof. Rather, the circuit CR-08-1413 court's Kyzer, R. charge 399 So. 1432-35.) court's 2 d 330 the or that this the cruel. Miller's standard ( A l a . 1981). Furthermore, finding atrocious, Thus, followed counsel burden other of cases proof f o r comparison Accordingly, underlying trial claim Appeal, the circuit heinous, So. at 1165-67. entitled to 913 2d the State i t did parte especially have Miller merit, been not d i d not present he failed also to a sustain facts from failed prove that his to prove that his c o u n s e l were i n e f f e c t i v e f o r not moving v e r d i c t on t h i s g r o u n d . Ex purposes. because had were that because in affirmed not d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t on t h e g r o u n d its Court Miller, would out ( R e c o r d on D i r e c t murders See set Therefore, "[b]ecause for a directed [Miller] failed to e s t a b l i s h that h i s i n e f f e c t i v e - a s s i s t a n c e - o f - t r i a l - c o u n s e l claim is meritorious, preponderance ineffective So. 2d at he has of the evidence that for failing to present failed to prove his appellate this claim." his appellate counsel by a counsel was Payne, 791 401-02. 4. Miller argued that contends trial that counsel rendered 162 should have ineffective assistance at CR-08-1413 the sentencing hearing. argues that (Miller's brief, the presentence the Alabama Board of Pardons the abuse 144.) investigative presentencing states a d d i t i o n a l evidence that that report, had but his that trial report prepared a have "reasonable the present any d i d not court's consideration. counsel presented sentenced In denying probability [him] that to death." relief on this the the trial (Miller's argument, judge brief, the He additional there would at circuit not 145.) court stated: "In p a r a g r a p h s 277-79 o f h i s amended p e t i t i o n , M i l l e r c l a i m s t h a t t r i a l c o u n s e l were i n e f f e c t i v e for failing t o o f f e r any a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e or witnesses i n support of M i l l e r . [Amended R u l e 32 P e t i t i o n , C. 3 5 0 - 5 1 . ] "The C o u r t d e n i e s M i l l e r ' s c l a i m b e c a u s e he h a s f a i l e d t o meet h i s b u r d e n o f p r o o f o f d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t h i s t r i a l c o u n s e l s ' p e r f o r m a n c e was deficient u n d e r S t r i c k l a n d , 466 U.S. a t 6 8 7 . A l a . R. C r i m . P., 32.7(d). Alabama c o u r t s have h e l d t h a t 'counsel does not n e c e s s a r i l y r e n d e r i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e s i m p l y b e c a u s e he d o e s n o t p r e s e n t a l l p o s s i b l e m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e . ' M c G a h e e v . S t a t e , 885 S o . 2 d 1 9 1 , 221 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ) . H o w e v e r , a s n o t e d 163 at reviewed m i t i g a t i n g evidence discussed elsewhere i n t h i s opinion, is by (Miller's brief, counsel counsel f o r the c i r c u i t his trial Miller and P a r o l e s " w o e f u l l y u n d e r s t a t e d [he] s u f f e r e d f r o m h i s f a t h e r . " Miller alleges a t 144-146.) CR-08-1413 above, trial counsel presented a competent m i t i g a t i n g case concerning M i l l e r ' s mental h e a l t h and background d u r i n g the p e n a l t y phase of the trial. The t r i a l c o u r t p r e s i d e d o v e r M i l l e r ' s t r i a l and h e a r d a l l of t h e m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d . Simply the f a c t t h a t M i l l e r ' s t r i a l counsel c o u l d h a v e p r e s e n t e d more m i t i g a t i o n e v i d e n c e d u r i n g t h e sentencing hearing does not establish deficient p e r f o r m a n c e u n d e r S t r i c k l a n d , See M c G a h e e , 885 So. 2 d a t 221 ( ' T r i a l c o u n s e l c o u l d h a v e c a l l e d more witnesses at the penalty-phase h e a r i n g before the trial judge, w i t h t h e hope t h a t t h e additional i n f o r m a t i o n would have c o n v i n c e d the t r i a l judge t o agree w i t h t h e j u r y ' s recommendation and t o s e n t e n c e McGahee t o l i f e i m p r i s o n m e n t without parole. The same c a n be s a i d a f t e r a n y s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g i n a c a p i t a l case i n which a death sentence i s imposed after the jury recommended a sentence of life imprisonment without parole.' (emphasis in original)). "Miller failed to ask trial counsel any q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e r e a s o n s why he d i d n o t c a l l any witnesses or present evidence during the s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g . [ F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 R u l e 32 H e a r i n g , R. 2 0 0 - 0 1 . ] T h e r e f o r e , t r i a l c o u n s e l ' s p e r f o r m a n c e must be p r e s u m e d t o be r e a s o n a b l e . Furthermore, M i l l e r ' s t r i a l c o u n s e l c o u l d n o t be i n e f f e c t i v e f o r f a i l i n g to present a d d i t i o n a l mitigation evidence d u r i n g t h e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g b e c a u s e ' S e c t i o n 13A5-47, A l a . Code 1975, does not p r o v i d e f o r the p r e s e n t a t i o n of a d d i t i o n a l m i t i g a t i o n evidence at s e n t e n c i n g b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t . ' B o y d v . S t a t e , 746 S o . 2 d 3 6 4 , 398 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1999). Therefore, Miller has failed to establish that his trial c o u n s e l s ' p e r f o r m a n c e was d e f i c i e n t a n d t h i s c l a i m is denied. "This c l a i m i s a l s o denied because M i l l e r has f a i l e d t o meet h i s b u r d e n o f p r o o f o f d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t he was p r e j u d i c e d . See S t r i c k l a n d , 466 U.S. at 164 CR-08-1413 6 9 5 ; A l a . R. C r i m . P., 32.7(d). Miller failed to e s t a b l i s h what a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e c o u l d have been submitted during the sentencing hearing. Miller a s k e d t r i a l c o u n s e l w h e t h e r he s u b m i t t e d D r . Scott o r Dr. McDermott's r e p o r t d u r i n g the sentencing hearing before the trial court; however, the substance of both reports had already [been] presented d u r i n g the p e n a l t y phase. Furthermore, the trial court found three statutory mitigating circumstances to e x i s t . M i l l e r , 913 So. 2d 1169. M i l l e r has f a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e what a d d i t i o n a l mitigating circumstances could have been proven d u r i n g the s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g . A c c o r d i n g l y , Miller h a s f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h p r o o f t h a t he was p r e j u d i c e d and t h i s c l a i m i s d e n i e d . " (C. 2103-05.) The law circuit are supported [Miller] by the f i n d i n g s of evidence. fact and conclusions Accordingly, of "[b]ecause f a i l e d to e s t a b l i s h that his i n e f f e c t i v e - a s s i s t a n c e - of-trial-counsel by court's c l a i m i s m e r i t o r i o u s , he a preponderance of the was ineffective 791 So. 2d at for failed evidence that his appellate failing 401-02. has to present this claim." to prove counsel Payne, 1 0 To the extent t h a t M i l l e r i s attempting to assert a claim that his trial counsel were ineffective for not o b j e c t i n g to the purported inadequacy of the presentence r e p o r t , t h i s a s s e r t i o n i s not p r o p e r l y before t h i s Court. M i l l e r n e i t h e r p r e s e n t e d t h i s as a c l a i m i n h i s amended R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n n o r s p e c i f i c a l l y a r g u e d t h i s a s a g r o u n d f o r r e l i e f d u r i n g t h e R u l e 32 e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g . A s we have s t a t e d e a r l i e r i n t h i s o p i n i o n , the r u l e s of p r e s e r v a t i o n 10 165 CR-08-1413 Miller have also argued asserts that his a p p r i s i n g the t r i a l decision that trial his appellate counsel were court of the U n i t e d i n A p p r e n d i v. (Miller's brief, at presented in Miller's New Jersey, 146-48.) 530 Rule not So. 2d properly before 237, ( A l a . C r i m . App. Miller assistance counsel 239 presents of trial should proceedings; abandoned the this 32 counsel have 466, 490 petition, Arrington v. nor was this i t claim State, 716 1997). other that presented claims Court's neither claims he in alleges the of ineffective his appellate post-sentencing however, the c i r c u i t c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t underlying not (2000) . was Accordingly, Court. several U.S. should for Supreme assertion addressed i n the e v i d e n t i a r y hearing. in ineffective States This amended counsel of ineffective Miller assistance of a p p l y i n R u l e 32 p r o c e e d i n g s , even i f the death p e n a l t y i s involved. T h u s , e v e n i f t h e p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t was "woefully i n a d e q u a t e , " w h i c h i t i s n o t , M i l l e r w o u l d be due no r e l i e f a s he f a i l e d t o a r g u e t h i s g r o u n d t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t . C f . Ex p a r t e W a s h i n g t o n , [Ms. 1 0 7 1 6 0 7 , A p r i l 1 5 , 2 0 1 1 ] So. 3 d ( A l a . 2011) (Supreme C o u r t i m p l i e d i n d i c t a t h a t a p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t , t o w h i c h W a s h i n g t o n o b j e c t e d , was i n a d e q u a t e b e c a u s e t h e r e p o r t c o n t a i n e d a l m o s t no i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t W a s h i n g t o n ' s t r o u b l e d u p b r i n g i n g o r i t s e f f e c t on h i m , n o r d i d t h e r e p o r t contain sufficient information about Washington's mentalhealth problems). 166 CR-08-1413 trial counsel because evidentiary hearing he did a n d / o r he not 491, 497 petitioner present Crim. App. any evidence to See C h a n d l e r v. strong and representation.]"); United the he has ("We record Payne, with regard to or abandoned the assistance of So. 2d at following at and circuit we will court to not to 15 effective i t evidentiary conclude that that them."). Miller of ineffective a. "Trial counsel was ineffective examining prosecution witnesses." b r i e f , at 129-31)(C. 2059-69); in cross(Miller's b. " T r i a l counsel i n e f f e c t i v e l y f a i l e d guilt-phase jury instructions." b r i e f , a t 1 3 4 - 3 5 ) (C. 2 0 6 6 - 6 7 ) ; to request (Miller's counsel: 167 a disprove review found n. claims trial underlying will fails ("Because evidence at the So. that 1314 [of 399 elicit evidentiary sufficient [ P a y n e ' s c l a i m s ] , we the F.3d the 929 held the presumption 791 abandoned these c l a i m s Specifically, 218 i s not continuing at in State, have claim States, a p p e a r s t h a t Payne d i d not p r e s e n t hearing B r o o k s v. 2005) support ambiguous or s i l e n t the claims i s d e e m e d t o h a v e a b a n d o n e d a c l a i m i f he hearing"); ("An (Ala. the d i d not pose questions evidence to support h i s claims. 2d pursue CR-08-1413 c. " T r i a l c o u n s e l was i n e f f e c t i v e i n h i s p e n a l t y phase c l o s i n g argument." (Miller's brief, at 135-39)(C. 2098-2100); d. "Trial counsel failed to request a special penalty-phase v e r d i c t f o r m t h a t was necessary to protect Mr. M i l l e r ' s rights." (Miller's b r i e f , a t 142-44)(C. 2100-11). Miller that does he a b a n d o n e d t h e s e failed t o prove assistance prove that Payne, counsel h i s appellate these claims we n o t e entitled error" Accordingly, allegations of had merit, counsel conclusion because he h a s a l s o were Miller ineffective failed to ineffective i n the post-sentencing no establish that to relief of h i s t r i a l due relief. any one trial/appellate parte claims. court's f o r not proceedings. 791 So. 2 d a t 4 0 1 - 0 2 . Last, is the c i r c u i t h i s underlying of t r i a l presenting is not dispute to the extent counsel As asserts he of the "cumulative because that Miller effect of and/or appellate counsel, discussed instance counsel, of above, l e t alone cumulative amounts of the law would to error at a l l be that, to of error. ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ('A when (as d i s t i n g u i s h e d 168 failed assistance ineffective W o o d s , 7 8 9 S o . 2 d 9 4 1 , 943 n . 1 statement Miller Miller no one from See Ex correct instance error not CR-08-1413 sufficiently effect cannot nonerrors State, denied, For circuit prejudicial warrant obviously 991 t o be reversal. do 991 S o . 2 d 3 3 6 In other not require So. 2 d 3 1 3 , 333 the reasons reversible), the cumulative words, reversal.')" (Ala. Crim. App. multiple McNabb 2007), v. cert. ( A l a . 2008). set forth above, t h e judgment of the and Burke, J J . , concur. Joiner, court i s affirmed. AFFIRMED. Welch, J., recuses P . J . , a n d Windom himself. 169

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.